DD_Fenrir

Your first mistake is assuming that a YouTube video is a faultless source of information. I have watched many of these Operations Rooms videos and - while entertaining - they all have errors; the Desert Storm, Operation Jericho and this one have various, some small, some not so.

Where possible for the landing evolution my understanding is they’ll place the wind slightly on the port quarter so the nett wind over deck ends up straight down the angle. Simplified Example: 15 knot wind from due north, carrier wants to make 30 knots; they steer 018 degrees and steam at 15 knots - the nett then would be at 009 degrees at (slightly less than) 30 knots.

You misquote me. I stated that the difference between the E and K is substantial, I mentioned nothing about the G. I suggest if you’re going to try and discredit me at least get your bloody facts straight. As it stands I’m with Yo-Yo - given that the K-4 was an attempt to rationalise the various G model improvements plus add the increased power it makes a great deal of sense to use that model to provide references for any specific data missing from the K-4. The mistakes that you and those of your rather petulant band of 109-o-philes keep making are: 1. Assuming that you know more than Yo-yo when it comes to calculating complex aerodynamics. 2. Assuming a civilian Bf 109G flown at nothing near the combat weights and power settings behaves anything like a Bf 109K-4 at the combat weights and power settings used in DCS. 3. Turning up to threads like this without a shred of incontrovertible period evidence to justify your beliefs. 4. Basing your opinion of what the K-4 flight model should be on what it does in another simulator. All warbirds in DCS have far more nuanced and challenging FMs compared to… other simulators… and having had the privilege of flying a real world example I can tell you who’s got the more authentic flight models; it ain’t the competition… The truth is you’ve been mollycoddled by the competition and now you’re faced with an aircraft that takes actual skill to master and it’s found you wanting. And you’re offended by that. If you had any actual motivation other than emotional backlash you’d pour your efforts into finding useful evidence to support your suppositions. Instead you present overtly simplified aerodynamic theories of which you have limited comprehension and jump on the smallest rumour or anecdotal snippet that tenuously could be spun to support your position and do so in a petulant, aggressive and frankly obnoxious manner because you’re an angry little man boy who’s toys aren’t pandering to his whims. So, before you post next, grow the hell up.

Source?

Jesus. What a steaming pile of male cow manure. No wonder you rabid 109 fanbois are so indignant; your delusion is so deeply ingrained that you actually believe any of the tripe you just posted. Wow.

Sorry, but Jafferson, do you have ANY idea how irrelevant your arguments are? Let's take a look at the differences between the two models shall we? Bf 109E-3 Bf 109K-4 Length (m) 8.74 9.02 Wingspan (m) 9.86 9.92 Wing Area (m2) 16.7 16.08 Empty Weight (kg) 2,125 2,800 Gross Weight (kg) 2,603 3,362 Horsepower 1,100 1,850 The gross weight alone of the K-4 is almost 30% above that of the E-3. The max power output with MW-50 is 68% more!! The prop is essentially a gyroscope stuck at one the ends of the aircraft farthest from the CoG; even a basic understanding of physics will tell you the more power you put through that, the more destabilising effect it has on the aircraft. That should instantly tell you that the K-4 is going to be notably more unstable at higher power settings, especially as airspeeds drop and the control surfaces become less effective. The wing was drastically re-designed. The tail heavily redesigned. Then you have additional tankage for the MW50 and it's plumbing behind the CoG. Then I suspect some ballast in the tail to attempt to counter the additional weight of the DB605 vs the DB 601 in the nose. All of which adds up to an aircraft of massive difference to the E-3. Your assumptions are wildly off the mark. It's not just a CoG issue btw; some of the tail heaviness of the K-4 comes from a different effect, one that comes into play at lower airspeeds and thusly increasing Angles of Attack. In a nose up, power on situation there is increasing pitch instability as airspeed bleeds - with each degree of AoA increase a greater portion of your thrust line is now directed into the vertical, wanting to lift the nose for no pilot input. With a longitudinally stable aircraft this effect is counteracted by natural tendency to nose drop as speed decays. Not so with a neutrally stable aircraft such as the Bf 109K-4 (and incidentally the Spitfire).

109 Fanboi: *quotes Bf 109E flight manual as citation for Bf 109K flight characteristics.* Me:

Just so people are aware this is a generic diagram of the effect: Be advised, my understanding of this is that the intensity of this varies depending on a variety of factors in real life; if there is little wind and the carrier is making it's own wind over deck then it tends to be worse as the disturbed air is coming straight back into the glideslope. However, with a good wind component positioned correctly and blowing in from the port side it's less of a factor as the wind carries the effect to a position to the starboard side of the glideslope where its effect is not so marked.

Jafferson - You assume fuselage alignment = AoA. It doesn’t. There’s a thing called angle of incidence. I suggest you do some further reading.

Again, people making irrelevant demands, based on ill-judged opinions, fuelled by misconception.... Because they talk about that which they know little.

Further recommended reading whilst we await a Rosetta Stone "RAF WW2" syllabus... http://natureonline.com/37/56-ap4-glossary.html

Agreed. No, It isn't. It is modelling an LF.IXc that first entered service in late spring of 1943, and aside from some minor modifications (a gyro gunsight was becoming far more ubiquitous by mid-1944) is practically identical to the LF.IXc - including operating at +18lb boost - that were still in service in large numbers with 2nd TAF for the invasion. This "we have a Spitfire from 1942!" crap has really got to stop. You assume a lot. Firstly Mk XVIs came in both high back and teardrop canopy versions, and in fact, the high back variants were far more numerous. Secondly the teardrop canopy versions were reaching the frontlines in April 1944 and saw service for only a few weeks before WW2 ended. Including this variant would be as egregious as being obliged to use a B 109K-4 on the Normandy map, as I guarantee there were even fewer low-back XVIs in service than K-4s during WW2. Plus you'd have to remodel the 3D model Spitfire completely - the differences are greater than you think, trust me - and then develop a new FM. It'd be a waste of development team effort; time and money would be better spent doing a MkXIV or a Typhoon or a Bf 109G-6/14 or a B-25; these at least would be useful for the maps we have.

Okay, I'll bite. Yes. But they were never all in the air in one sector at the same time. It allowed the Allies great breadth and depth of defence operations in addition to the ability to mount offensive air operations simultaneously. However, there are numerous occasions when in a local sector the Luftwaffe were able to marshal sufficient forces to concentrate an entire Gruppe and meet the Allied units therein in similar numbers; on some occasions to even outnumber them. E.G, in late July a formation of some 40 odd Fw 190s was engaged by a single section of 4 Spitfire IXs from 442 Squadron over St Lo. This is not an isolated incident and similar incidents occurred to greater or lesser degree till the end of hostilities. Agreed that the implementation of MW50 was likely not ubiquitous across the Bf 109 fleet, especially in Normandy in 1944. But your proposal oversimplifies the problem. There is nuance here. We have accurate records of where 150 Octane was available, when, and to what extent it was used and the likelihood of combat occurring. The records simply do not exist for the Luftwaffe's use of MW50 and how prevalent or otherwise it may have been in any sector at any time. The simplest summary for 150octane usage is is thus: For strategic air ops by aircraft based in the UK after June 1944 then yes 150 octane is most likely. For tactical operations the opposite. The DCS ecosystem is a currently biased towards tactical operations. Ergo the most representative option is those aircraft running 130 octane. And again, I direct you to incontrovertible fact that I posted earlier: Not for the maps we have I grant you, but that's a different problem. I've said it once I'll say it again: a Bf 109G-6 late would be beneficial for the community and be appropriate to both the Normandy and the Channel map; perhaps with a secondary G-14 variant bundled in the module (like the various P-47 sub-variants) to allow for an even greater timeline to be covered. A P-51B/C would have been better representative aircraft for both maps and I would still like to this as an AI or even flyable module A P-47D-22 would have been better representative aircraft for both maps and I would still like to this as an AI or even flyable module 150 Octane should be an option as soon as a map becomes available that represents an area and chronology where it was the representative fuel in use with the aircraft we have, i.e. German Frontier 1944-45 or a North Sea Strategic Bombing 1944 map. There is a lot of historical inconsistency in DCS WW2 at this time. I don't defend it. I don't like it. But I have the pragmatism to realise it is what we have. Am I against efforts to correct this? Of course not! But we can only influence EDs decision making by making rational and appropriate arguments backed by robust evidence. Compounding existing inaccuracies by proposing further inaccuracies is anathema. I repeat myself again: I would like 150 octane options too. I just can’t agree with some of the over-emotionally charged and irrational arguments that are put forward to justify it's inclusion currently.

I’m done here. You’re bending historical fact to suit your narrative whilst at the same time saying historicity is irrelevant. Your arguments are inconsistent, cherry picked and inaccurate. There is no point in continuing in any reasonable discourse because you fail at every point to make reasoned and rational argument because you are so desperate to justify your position and you are too insecure to concede to any point, because - in your mind - to admit any small wrong would compromise your greater argument. Which is ludicrous. The sad thing is, ultimately I don’t disagree with you. I would like 150 octane options too. I just can’t agree with your rabid incoherent justifications.

16 squadrons total - of all aircraft types, not just Mk IX, and all dedicated to shooting down V-1s. Never crossing the enemy coast, let alone going anywhere near the frontline, just staying over the channel or the UK itself to chase Doodlebugs. I suggest you go research the squadron ORBs for that period and see just how few encountered any Luftwaffe piloted aircraft... 1 squadron, 64 squadron, 74 Squadron, 234 Squadron or 402 Squadron. I get that the K-4 shouldn't be anywhere near any of the maps we have currently and I'm itching to see a Bf109G-6 late/G-14 myself if just for the chronological consistency, but you must bear in mind that the performance of these will be superior to the G-2 you reference in your report and will still outrun an LF Mk.IX at most altitudes if equipped with MW50, which some would have certainly had during the period. The fact is that real world Spitfire pilots using planes powered 'only' with 130 Octane, were, in the late Autumn and Winter of 1944 facing late model MW50 equipped Bf 109s all across the Dutch/German frontier. It is an entirely historical match-up. In addition, you seem to be insinuating - rather naively - that 'cleared to use' means that suddenly every RAF fighter unit in the ETO was suddenly using 150 octane the next day. Check actual ORBs and you'll understand that it took several weeks for the supplies to be allocated, diverted and then delivered. Even then the squadron had to be taken out of service for a few days further to adjust the ignition timing to take advantage of the new fuel. On every engine of every aircraft in the entire squadron. It did not happen overnight. It took 6-8 weeks for that decision to use 150 Octane to be felt at the aircraft level.

And... All the data you have posted just literally confirmed everything I just told you. Your petulance speaks volumes. It tells me that this whole exercise is a childish cry of frustration from a player who wants the software to compensate for his lack of tactical nous and make up for his shortcomings as a virtual fighter pilot. I regularly fly the Spitfire against the very same opponents you do, both AI and player. I get some victories, some get away and occasionally a few spank my ass. Do I wish for a more historically consistent plane-set and map combination? Sure. Do I whine like a petty little bitch and make sneering demands and jibes at the developer because my own pet wish is not fulfilled? No. It's called maturity. You want to try developing some.

1. Mk IXe indicates change in armament only. There is no inherent indication as to the type of Merlin fitted. For that a prefix is required: "F" - Merlin 61, rated to 1,565 hp at 3,000 rpm at 12,250 ft, +15psi Boost or Merlin 63, rated to 1,710 hp at 3,000 rpm at 8,500 ft, +18psi Boost (best performance at "medium to high" altitudes) "LF" - Merlin 66, 1,720 hp at 5,790 ft, +18 psi boost - as we have currently modelled in DCS. (best performance at "low to medium" altitudes) "HF" - Merlin 70, 1,655 hp at ~10,000 ft, +18 psi boost - as we have currently modelled in DCS. (best performance at "medium to high" altitudes) Considering most combat in DCS happens in the lower altitude bands a Merlin 70 version would be of marginal value. Also a very small percentage of the Mk.IX fleet were "HF" variants as the majority of real world combat was occurring at low to medium altitude at this time. 2. 150 Octane - it has been pointed out to you before that there's a narrow window of very limited use of this fuel. It is also not exclusive to the Mk.IX or the "e" subvariant. On the run up to D-Day a only two squadrons of the total (30 odd) Spitfire IX equipped in the RAF, Dominion and Allied Air Forces were using it on an operational trials basis. Less than 10%. With the advent of the Vergeltungswaffen campaign in mid-June there was a move to get all Spitfires, Tempest and Mosquitos involved in the interception of V-1s as part of Air Defence Great Britain (ADGB) onto 150 Octane; this however does NOT extend to 2nd TAF, (who eschewed 150 octane on logistical grounds) and this is the where where the vast majority of Spitfire LF.IXs are allocated. Again there were less than a handful of ADGB squadrons operating Spitfire Mk.IXs. In September as the V-1 threat evaporated ADGB reverted back to 130 Octane as it simplified the logistics of transferring units between itself and 2nd TAF. During the entirety of the Autumn and Winter of 1944 no Spitfire in the ETO was using 150 grade fuel. In late February/early March of 1945 2nd TAF based on the continent starts switching to 150 Octane, probably as an attempt to give their aircraft the most performance available in light of the threat from Luftwaffe jets. However by the beginning of May they too revert to 130 Octane. So for Normandy map, 150 Octane for the Spitfire IX would be 90%+ irrelevant. For the Channel Map, if you wish to simulate the 'Diver' sorties of the limited number of Spitfire Mk.IXs involved during the summer of 1944, then there is a case but it's limited. The best case is if ED should develop a German frontier 1945 map - then you'd be entirely justified asking for 150 Octane. Plus it would be the optimum fit for the Fw 190D-9 and Bf 109K-4. 3. 2x .50 calibre secondary armament - I too have requested for this to be available as 3 squadrons of 2nd TAF were so equipped before D-Day and it sees ever increasing use as 1944 moves on. However, it was not the exclusive armament on Spitfire IXs until the spring of 1944 and the bulk of Mk IXs meeting the Luftwaffe during 1944 did so armed with 4x 3.03. What does all this mean? For the Normandy map, set as it is in mid 1944, the LF Mk.IXc at +18psi on 100/130 Octane is representative of the most common variant you'd likely encounter/be flying. For the Channel map, set as it seems in early 1944 (though useful for mid-late 1943 scenarios) the LF Mk.IXc at +18psi on 100/130 Octane is representative of the most common variant you'd likely encounter/be flying. Should we get the chance to intercept V-1s at a later date then there is an argument that the 150 Octane should be available.

Werlin, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Simple version: Play the campaign with the A. Invest your time with the A. It will only make you better with the B.

My opening statement: As it currently stands the pitch control and stick force model employed in the DCS: Mosquito model needs review for FFB users, particularly those with Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. They currently face an unhappy compromise; a) either they adopt a linear (1:1) control curves which renders their stick so sensitive to pitch input that it's nearly impossible to fly with any realistic precision for formation or gunnery, or, b) with even a moderate curve (say 20 to 25, which works nicely on, for example, the P-51) we are subjected to a "trim trap"; this is where we are obliged to trim artificially (i.e. beyond the aircraft operating manual values) so nose heavy to actually reach trimmed flight that it puts us unrealistically close to a virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. This causes a sudden nose down tendency - tucking - with slight airspeed increases, which, given the very low level cruising and attack profiles often employed by real-life Mosquito crews, can be the cause of loss of controlled flight into terrain; the operator is either obliged to hastily add some nose up trim or apply large elevator control displacement to correct this tendency. If the virtual pilot has succeeded in avoided collecting the ground, sea, tree or structure that the Mossie had suddenly decided was to be their perfect burial plot, they now find themselves porpoising heavily, their airspeed having now dropped in the climb to below that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. So now they're trimmed too tail heavy and are fighting to keep the aircraft's nose down. Having generally ballooned during this process, they descend to their correct cruise altitude, pick up a bit of speed on the way down and... pass that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force again, recommencing the entire ordeal. Trying to fly formation or engage ground targets under these flight characteristics is again, rendered unrealistically difficult. In either case, flying the Mosquito is not a lot of fun, and it makes me wary of using it, and therefore it seems like a waste of money in some regards. It then colours my keenness of purchasing further modules in the future in case a similar issue arises. Let me be clear; I am not criticizing Yo-yo's work on the flight model; there are characteristics and restrictions that affected the real aeroplane here that must be transmitted to the player; my argument is that FFB users - and in particular Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 users - are being artificially handicapped based on their gaming hardware due to a mismatch between physical and virtual ergonomics and a trim/stick force model that does not seem to account for the displaced datum inherent to FFB joystick operation. I would like to propose discussion with ED on how we could help them figure out a way adjusting the DCS: Mosquitos trim/stick force model that would not render the aircraft so uncharacteristically unpleasant to fly for FFB users, but still reflect authentic flight characteristics for all users. Question to Yo-yo; 1. Why as an FFB user is the inherent ability of an FFB stick to provide sufficient stick force to reflect those felt in the real aircraft not being leveraged? Why are FFB users subjected to the same artifice implemented to provide a spring tensioned joystick user with some controllability penalty when reaching the required threshold, when the FFB motors could be driven to provide the requisite force to restrict speed and amplitude of stick displacement? If you are an FFB user who has these issues please like or thank this post. If you are an FFB user who has NOT had these issues please provide further dialogue so that we might pin-down where and why some of us are having these issues. If you do not use FFB and are about to tell me to go buy a non-FFB product, please save your breath; there is a reason I hang on to a 20 year-old stick; having flown real aircraft I find the varying stick forces and increased AoA buffet that some aircraft give you a necessary part of my simming experience and you are not going to persuade me otherwise. If you are going to suggest I spend $1000+ dollars on a new FFB device, then again, save your breath. That is not an affordable option for me.

English is the current lingua franca of international business, science, technology, and aviation. It is the third most understood language across the world, the primaries being Mandarin Chinese and then Spanish but these sums are mainly based on total number of peoples speaking, which naturally lends weight to those nations with very large populations, many of these being less developed nations. However, economically speaking, EDs market resides in the 1st World, where English is more dominant. Ergo, if you aim to be consistent in your map annotation and want any place name to be understood by the widest percentage of your customers, English is the logical choice. Why anyone would be so piqued about the spelling of their hometown on a map in a computer game is, I feel, a far more knotty question.

Hi Gunfreak, If you're open to some advice... 1. You spend a great deal of time at sub-optimal MP settings. Much of it you are at under 35". You're over babying the engine. You can stay at 61" MP and 3,000 RPM for 15 minutes if you keep your speed at 200mph or over. If you're starting to worry about temps then bring her back to 46" and 2,700 (maximum continuous) for a while. 2. Use rudder more - when in a banked turn, a little rudder into the turn helps balance the aircraft and delays the stall slightly, meaning you'll get less of those incipient spin flicks (Bear in mind that later on, some of those were due to the gaping hole on your left wing-tip...). Also make sure you check rudder trim particularly when about to make gunnery passes; spot your slip gauge quickly before committing finger to trigger - If it's not in the middle, the bullets won't go where the reticule is pointing. Also remember that your rudder trim is applicable for a single speed/power setting only; if you're airspeed is higher or your MP is lower than that setting you're likely out of trim requiring a left rudder input to correct; if you're airspeed is low or your power is higher a right rudder input will be required to balance the aircraft - important things to bear in mind whilst in the middle of a dynamic 3-dimensional dogfight where adjusting trim to the rapidly changing energy state of your aircraft could well be unfeasible. 3. If using the lead computing gyro feature of the K-14 gunsight, have the range adjustment mapped to a HOTAS binding if able; for you to make the best of it you need to be adjusting the graticule size to keep the targets wingtips just touching the inner edge, otherwise again, the bullets will not be going where the graticule is suggesting. If this is not an option, I suggest either resorting to the fixed only site, or having the dynamic graticule and fixed site cross only. Otherwise that was fun to watch and looked epic!

Personally I would recommend Jocko's Spitfire skins: Seen in the DCS New WWII Propeller Technology video: here Reflected's skins are great but there's just some combination of colour and tone that to me feels a bit more so with Jocko's skins. In addition he has edited out a number of errors in the panel lines to make his skins as authentic to a wartime Spitfire as a DCS skin gets. His generic skins also include revised fonts and colours for the squadron code and serial letters & numbers to make them look a great deal more authentic. His skins are all available on the ED User files, here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/unit-is-spitfire_lf_mk.ix/user-is-jocko417/apply/?PER_PAGE=50

There's the issue. There's no getting around the physics. If your temps were in the green until this moment it is likely that the sudden application of max. power at that low an airspeed spiked the temps before the cooling system could react. The rad doors on the Pony do NOT open/close progressively with temperature increase/decrease. The technology to do this simply was not available back then. What you have instead are two thresholds; a high and a low. When engine temps hit the high threshold the doors start to open and continue to open until they are full open or until the temperature drops to or below that high threshold and which point they cease to open any further. The low threshold works identically in reverse; when engine temps hit the low threshold the doors start to close and continue to close until they are fully shut or until the temperature climbs to or above that low threshold and which point they cease to close any further. The process takes time to open and close the doors and for the resulting cooling or heating effect to work it's way around the system. It is not instantaneous. If you demand too much too soon it is possible to heat spike the system because the coolant system cannot keep up with the increased thermal load that your power application demands. The low speed regime simply exacerbates the problem. 1. Where possible keep IAS over 200mph. 2. Avoid sustained vertical manoeuvres and if the speed drops below 160 with your nose high, cut power and pick up airspeed to get better than 200 before re-application. 3. Clue is in the name: War Emergency Power. Use it to run away cos you're out of ammo or ideas and make sure you have some smash on before hitting that button. It is not a "toggle to win" button in the midst of a dogfight. There is a kernel of truth it what you say; I personally (and I suspect many others here) think EDs interpretation of the engine thermal limits are a little too strict. There are indeed reports out there of pilots giving their Merlin's quite a flogging and it being a seemingly robust powerplant. However... There is such a thing as survivor bias; what about all those reports that couldn't be filed because the unfortunate pilot was KiA or a PoW because he overworked his engine too long or too hard? No powerplant is indestructible and there are a host of factors that define how long an engine can last under duress. Most of us are eager to see the implementation of EDs revised cooling model, as it has been teased for some 3-4 years now but the Pony & Spitfire are eminently flyable and fightable in DCS - if you are mindful of your speed and power settings and fly accordingly.

Thanks NL.

I feel need adjusting. The tone is too light in the blue and there is too much pink, giving the blue a near indigo/purple hue. The red I feel is closer but would be easier to interpret if contrasted against the correct blue. DCS default Mosquito scheme: Original colour photographs (NOT COLOURISED):