DD_Fenrir

2850 @ +12 is Combat/Climb power and with a limit of 1 hour. Any RPM or boost setting over that is stressing the engine. If RPM limits the maximum boost safely available would these figures be given in pilots notes? Why would +13, +15 or even +17 not be stipulated if that was 'safe' for limited periods. Given that detonation cues in DCS can be masked by gunfire/buffet sounds (or just by being task saturated in a combat environment)and in previous years Merlins in Mustangs and Spits have been very unforgiving of over-boosting and suddenly seizing with very little warning, I assume the worst case; that is, those boost settings given are the maximum allowed for a given RPM setting to minimise chance of knock, and any boost setting above those should require an attendant increase in RPM to operate without risk of detonation.

I referenced this: ...these and the Mk.IX pilots notes. Whilst I realise that the above are given for Mk.V airframes, the block of the Merlin from the 40 series to the 60 series was not much changed (primary modifications were supercharger related) and have assumed that these are relevant. I made that the assumption that the max boost given for each RPM setting is the safe limit as for fuel economy it's revs that are the primary defining factor and you typically wish to fly at the maximum boost available at the a given RPM to maximise your airspeed (and minimise your flight time/exposure to risk in enemy airspace.) I have not tested where the combination of RPM/boost causes detonation in the DCS Merlin, frankly my time is limited and I have better things to do when I do get a chance to play DCS than start a series of exhaustive trails and experiments, so I used these as a reasonable basis to go forward.

Here's a quote from the late Tom Neil, former Battle of Britain Hurricane who flew Spitfire Vs and XIIs on cross channel operations in 1942-43:

Ah. Then it's more likely that you over-boosted the engine and this resulted in detonation. This could have caused the damage to the spark plus (ignition elements). Remember if you open the throttle too wide at lower RPMs that it will result in detonation AKA knock. At 1,800 RPM you shouldn't be above +2.75lb boost. At 2,000 RPM you shouldn't be above +4.5lb boost. At 2,400 RPM you shouldn't be above +6lb boost. At 2,650 RPM you shouldn't be above +7lb boost. At 2,850 RPM you shouldn't be above +12lb boost. Anytime you go above +12lb boost you have to be at 3,000 RPM Apparently, according to NineLine, it is.

The notch susceptibility is not the problem per se; it's the automatic pitch up that the missile does on losing track of a target in the notch. This pulls the missile seeker field of view away from the target and negates any chance to reacquire the target if it pops out of the notch again. Let's be clear, the DCS AIM-54 will reacquire if given the opportunity. I had a rare case last night where a 40nm shot against a MiG-25 was notched when the MiG cranked to defend but as the missile commence it pull-out, the MiG popped out of the notch just within the seeker field of view and the Phoenix reacquired. Only just got the MiG as the -25 then defended with a descending slice-back and I - on the edge of my seat - was willing it all the way in. It seemed an eternity till it finally connected with only about +25 knot overtaking speed! The trouble is finding any data to corroborate whether any of these behaviours are right or wrong. Would the real AIM-54 pull up as soon as it is notched? Seems a bit unlikely that the guidance engineers would miss the opportunity to allow the missile a chance to reacquire a target that might only notch momentarily, but this then begs the question: Would the real AIM-54 seeker and guidance system be able reacquire a target emerging from a notch? Or is the technology of the Phoenix's guidance tracking system of just too early a generation to have that abilty?

To my eye that looks like spark plug fouling; when running for long periods at low boost and RPM you need to periodically (every 15 minutes or so) punch up to combat power (2850 RPM, +12lb boost) for a minute to clean the plugs...

Unfortunately this is longstanding issue. Current thought seems to place this under EDs bailiwick as it's an issue with the carrier itself and current hypothesis is that somewhere in the coding is a restriction on putting two 'large' aircraft next to each other on Cats 1 &2 to avoid collisions. It seems that the Tomcat is being recognised as a 'large' aircraft and thus enables this restriction. So some line of code needs to be tweaked somewhere to adjust these parameters to allow the F-14s to hook-up side by side on the two forward Cats. Best to nag ED about it.

The .303s I don’t have much reference on; though I too have read/heard the tearing linen reference but as noted that might have been more appropriate for the 8 gun fighters of the early part of the war. What really seems to have changed is the Hispano 20mm sounds - but I’m not sure for the better. They sound tinny and thin compared to the previous iteration and considering that most sources refer to the sound as a thumping noise it doesn’t seem to mesh…

Just got clarification, he means use the Mission Planner button at the bottom of each briefing page; this allows you to make limited edits to loadouts, skins and other options for your aircraft and those of your flight members prior to committing to the mission.

To kill the engine first you run the power up till you get 1900 RPM (ensure brakes are full on and stick full aft). Allow to run for 5-10 seconds then pull the mixture lever full aft. Master fuel cock to off. Once engine has stopped then kill the mags. Why this order? You run up the engine to help clear the spark plugs. You kill the fuel to prevent fuel being trapped in the cylinders (compressing liquids = very bad for motors). You keep the spark going (magnetos)till the engine stops to burn off any fuel in the cylinders (same reason as above). Now this being DCS some of this may not be much of a concern but if you stop an engine to repair and want to restart to continue your mission you might need to follow the above sequence; I have always done it this way so can’t say if a plain magneto cut is detrimental in DCS.

Crikey. ED get grief when they provide aircraft fixes ahead of core engine fixes. ED also get grief when they provide core engine fixes ahead of aircraft fixes. Lose-lose it seems. Of course some of you could actually be grateful you get ANY fixes at all....

Also @Gunfreak, 332 Sqn (Norwegian) were flying F.Mk.IXs in mid 1943. There were British (64 Sqn, 130 Sqn, 234 Sqn, 501 Sqn & 611 Sqn), Canadian (402 Sqn), French (345 Sqn), Belgian (350 Sqn) & Polish (303 Sqn) squadrons still flying LF.V Spitfires on D-Day. Truth is that most Spitfire squadrons in 1943 rotated in and out of 10, 11 & the south-eastern part of 12 Group (those most likely to see operations over France); typically the Mk.IXs stayed in the Group at the airbase, with the outgoing squadron leaving them behind for the new incumbents to use whilst they would find a host of Mk.Vs to fly during their rest from ops. Even in early 44 there were not enough IXs on strength to equip all of the Spitfire units and still have a useful reserve for replacements and spares. This meant that when the biggest possible forces needed to be marshalled for Overlord, some units were moved towards the operational area still obliged to utilise the Mk.Vs they had been given. Even then, don't forget that the LF.Vc version was a potent low level fighter and that two days after D-Day a 142 Wing formation encountered a flight of 6x Bf 109s over the Orne river and were able to destroy 2, claim a third as probable and damage a fourth. Not exactly a useless machine.... However, by August/September of 1944, there's no more Mk.Vs on frontline operations. To suggest that the RAF palmed off it's second rate airframes onto their foreign Allies whilst keeping the good one's for themselves is plain inaccurate and reflects an unfair assumption of some kind of institutionalised xenophobia within the RAF command ranks of the time.

The picture. Of a MkIX. Of 331 squadron (Norwegian) Post D-Day. With a GGS.

Not so much... Norwegian Spitfire Foundation Announce Restoration of Spitfire Mk.IX PL258 (warbirdsnews.com)

Absolutely this. The "but we've got an 1943 Spitfire, it's not fair" is male bovine excrement and irrelevant. The truth is the LFMk IX running 18lb and with the 2x20mm + 4x .303" armament was the most numerous variant in operation over France in the spring summer and autumn of 1944. Would I like an option for GGS equipped version? Meh. Not fussed, I don't find them beneficial personally, but they were historically available at time of the invasion. Would I like to see an option with the 'e' armament (2x 20mm + 2x .50cal)? Absolutely. 3 squadrons equipped as such were flying on with 2nd TAF over the invasion area on D-Day and thereafter. Would I like to see the broad chord rudder? Right now not particularly. It only becomes commonplace with the arrival of the MkXVI (that's '16' btw, not '14') in early 1945. Would I like to see the a +25lb version (150 octane fuel)? Right now, no. This argument has been done to death. At the time of D-Day 2 out of 39 Spitfire IX squadrons were using it. A smidge over 5%. Even as the Normandy campaign continues, those squadrons that are converted are all dedicated to Air Defence Great Britain and concerning themselves with the V-1 defence operations. As a Jagdwaffe pilot over Normandy, your percentage chance of encountering a Spitfire LF.IXc operating at +25lb boost is negligible. Should a West Wall map covering Belgium/Holland and the German Frontier in 1944-45 ever be forthcoming then I will change that opinion. The problem is, and had always been, that WE HAVE GERMAN FIGHTER AIRCRFAT MODELS THAT DO NOT BELONG WITH THE MAPS WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. This is why DCS needs a Bf 100G-6/14, and why DCS should seriously consider a West Wall map as a prototypical home for the Kurfurst and the Dora. These arguments all evaporate with these two developments.

In fairness to the other modules they are less affected as it’s combination of very effective elevator and a stick force that increases significantly as airspeed increases. The Mossie is fairly unique in the FFB user being affected so badly.

It depends entirely on EDs plans for the future; if (as I hope) it is planned to expand the channel map eastwards and northwards then the likelihood that the airfields missing from either could be included increases as there would be less conflict of interest. However, we also know that eventually ED have designs on a full globe model; it could well be that the data from both these flat maps will be integrated and sit side by side on the same 3d environment. If this is the case then the argument becomes moot. Ultimately Sandman I would have liked to have seen more overlap regards the airfields too from a mission/campaign building process but the ED have made their decision based on decisions that we can only speculate at and that are geared to help keep their company solvent; it does us very poorly if ED folded.

ED seems to think so and it's their software.... But DCS is not every other game, this is the key point.

You do realise that simply saying the same thing over and over and over again, doesn't make you any more right, yeah?

You can but it comes at a cost and you have to find a compromise for your stick length that keeps it controllable whilst limiting the airspeeds at which the elevators lock up to a speed range at which it least affects you. Note: I am not syaying this is right, I'd much rather this mis-match between input curves and virtual stick forces was sorted out but in the interim, it can be made less of a pain.

Hi havebug, what is the dimension of the stick from the top to the apparent point of pivot?

Modus Operandi for certain community members round here.... Christ, have you actually comprehended ANYTHING that has been said to you in the last 2 pages?!?!?! Are you truly that obtuse?!?!!