DD_Fenrir

Manual is wrong.

4th generation is not defined by FBW; it’s a higher level distinction based upon the overarching design concepts driven by operational requirements - 3rd gen reflect the primacy of interception, and hence speed and climb, over any other characteristics; these aircraft were designed for shooting down nuclear bombers as the day of the dogfight was deemed to have passed. Vietnam and the various conflicts in the Middle East showed this to be a lie and thus 4th generation aircraft exhibit design choices that attempt to marry high speed AND excellent manoeuvrability in order to be competitive in all possible regimes of air combat.

1. What airfield? Bear in mind many of the landing grounds in the Channel or Normandy map are fighter fields and have only 2,000 yard runways; a FB.VI Mossie can get off fully fuelled and with a 2000lb bomb load but 10 degrees of flap is required and you will not have a lot of runway to spare; in real life the fighter-bomber Mossie units tended to be based at larger fields with longer concrete/asphalt runways. 2. Are you taking off into wind? I CANNOT EMPHASISE HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. I see so many people in DCS in multiplayer get in and fly WW2 era aircraft and pay absolutely no attention to wind direction or strength. Then they have the temerity to wonder why their landings/take-offs/taxiing got suddenly harder. If you are taking off with a crosswind, tailwind or - god forbid - a three-quartering tail-wind then either the mission designer effed-up or you need to pay more attention. A crosswind might be unavoidable, but most of the DCS airfields (on the WW2 maps at least) provide an option to choose a runway that places the crosswind component a little less aggressively. THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO TAKEOFF WITH A TAILWIND. DON'T DO IT, ESPECIALLY IN A MOSSIE. 3. How straight is he keeping it on his take-off run? You might be keeping her off the grass on the takeoff run, but if you're snaking left and right and using full deflection rudder inputs that's limiting your ability to accelerate. She needs to be kept as straight as possible. 4. Get the tail up! Have 2 division nose down trim, and make sure to get the tail off the ground (gently!) as soon as she'll allow; she'll pick up speed faster. With the 10 degree flap setting and the tail up she'll lift herself off as soon as she's ready to fly; try to force her off the ground and you'll end up in the.... 5. The AoA drag trap If you get flying too soon and with the benefit of ground effect you'll find yourself trapped in a nose high, high power mushing state; you're airborne but unable to make altitude or accelerate because the the angle of attack you require to maintain flight after you leave the threshold of ground effect is generating so much drag you can't get any more airspeed. Put you're flaps away and you'll sink into the ground. Lift the nose higher and you'll stall. This is happening because you forced the aircraft to fly before she is ready and whilst still in ground effect. You have to allow her to lift herself off. Keep your climb angle VERY shallow and get the gear way as fast as possible, being aware that as the gear goes away the pitch trim changes massively and wants to lift the nose markedly - KEEP IT SHALLOW. Once she's got to 190IAS then get the flaps away. As a footnote I do suspect that some of the DCS airfields have too many trees/obstructions too close on runway line; in real life there were quite stringent parameters regarding the height and distance from the approaches to a runway that obstacles were allowed; if there were any (including houses!) they were cleared. I think DCS might not reflect some of these obstacle clearance rules.

Please consider the addition of either of the two following airfields to this map to provide a prototypical home for USAAF P-51 units: RAF Lashenden: Airfield History - Lashenden Air Warfare Museum English Heritage RAF Photography RAF_CPE_UK_1923_RS_4229 | American Air Museum in Britain Headcorn Aerodrome in Kent - EGKH History RAF Staplehurst RAF Staplehurst - Wikipedia Staplehurst | American Air Museum in Britain

Please consider the addition of some of the ALGs used by the US 9th Air Force. RAF Lymington: Lymington Advanced Landing Ground – Overview – New Forest Knowledge (nfknowledge.org) RAF Beaulieu: RAF Beaulieu - Wikipedia Beaulieu Airfield | New Forest National Park (new-forest-national-park.com) RAF Stoney Cross: Stoney Cross Airfield | New Forest National Park (new-forest-national-park.com) RAF Ibsley: RAF Ibsley, Hampshire Airfield Site (atlantikwall.co.uk) RAF Ibsley - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

Please consider the addition of an airfield for this map that was the prototypical home for a Wing of Mosquito FB.VI, RAF Thorney Island: THORNEY ISLAND (hampshireairfields.co.uk)

Ultimately this should be a feature implemented independently of a review of the thermodynamic modelling - the fact is the DCS Spitfires Merlin 66 is missing a system that prevents the temperature ever from dropping below 80 degrees once the engine is running, a system that has been proved unequivocally to be a feature of the real aircraft.

One wonders if you've actually be reading the thread and absorbing the information therein... There are changes to missiles because ED are updating (note present tense, i.e. this is an ongoing iterative process) the core code that drives missile behaviours. Ergo any code written to govern the behaviour of missile 'X' prior to this will be suffering from profound over/under performing issues, particularly at the edges of the envelope. This is the fundamental cause of this quirky missile behaviour we have been seeing over many missile models - including EDS - own over the past year. I think we can all agree that as long as developers can model the physical properties of each missile as closely as data allows and that the guidance logic for each is based upon similarly available data then that's the best we can hope for.

Nonsense. Being passionate is not license to be ill-mannered, insulting, derogatory or aggressive. True passion is persistence, dedication, resilience and vision. Nowhere does it tacitly authorise the requirement to be impolite, unkind or ignorant.

Ward Carroll references 40nm for a 5th gen fighter threat in this video: No mention of altitude, however.

For us WW2 buffs who try to recreate historical missions from an Allies perspective, it would be a nice quality of life addition to provide an option to have the dimensional and speed data presentable in statute miles and mph as well as the Knot/nm and metric options in place. Thanks for the consideration.

My suspicions are that Normandy will, after the update to bring in London and Paris, for the foreseeable future, be limited to the new boundaries that including these two cities sets; this looks like it will cover an area from Bristol to Paris. However it massively opens up an AO for the inclusion of a large number of Allied and Axis airfields and a wider useful chronology for mission builders. Concurrently, I forsee that the Channel Map will be used as a foundation point for pushing East and maybe slightly North to include Belgium, Holland and the Rhineland, making the map more useful for Autumn/Winter 1944 scenarios. Having a useful amount of overlap is no bad thing; plenty of times I would run into hurdles wanting to portray historical missions from an airbase on the Channel map that pushed further West or South into territory that was only available on the Normandy Map. If my theory bears out then it could spell more opportunity for realistic historical mission and campaign developments.

Wow. So much hubris in one person. Piece of advise; don’t contravene rule one.

Open the pilot side window prior to giving the command...

Amazing how many people think the P-38 was not a factor in the ETO; 6 entire Fighter Groups were equipped at the time of D-Day. That's 6 Groups x 3 Squadrons x 16 aircraft = 288 operational airframes on a good day. It may have been outnumbered by it's contemporaries but if any one thinks almost 300 aircraft is somehow insignificant? Well...

+1

It's the Skin Prof. The are two Coastal Command schemes; the one with the 'L' on you cannot manipulate the codes; the second similar skin you can however. The traditional RAF green/grey skin as always had and continues to have the ability to change the squadron codes and serial number.

The point of the Phoenix is long range stand-off missile shots - that's it's raison d'etre. You're supposed to be chucking them at 30-50 nm, not hanging on to them for a sub 20nm close range fight, where you are approaching - or within - your enemies NEZ. If HB had not massaged to make it perform at long range as it should they'd have got a lot more grief from a far wider section of the community. It's a compromise, that relies on people using the missile in an authentic manner. And it's not like they've ignored the issue or have given you the finger and said "tough sh*t, deal with it" - they have said REPEATEDLY that once the new API is available that they'll look at sorting this discrepency but until then it can't be fixed in the current missile engine. How many times does this need repeating? How many times you do have to be told the same thing before your comprehension finally kicks in?

Now that looks better! Back onboard! FlyingIron P-38 gets a preliminary thumbs up from me.

I wouldn't bother with any further explanations; those of us who have the capacity to understand already do. No amount of rational elucidation will satiate the witch-hunt brigade. Let them froth and twitch.

I agree, plus I would add HOTAS+body+module; a curve that works for one module will not automatically be the solution to any others. Each needs to be setup as an individual case. The only universal statement I would say is to use the minimum curvature you feel comfortable with.

It’s less that and more that the lateral sliding is so much more detectable in RL via the butt cheeks that it was making the DCS tail drafters artificially difficult to handle; they decided to allow a bit more lateral slipping to compensate for the lack of feedback.

D-Day happened about 60 miles further southwest.... So.... no.

Three things that I found helped me hit the basket more regularly: 1. Anticipate - Make corrections sooner rather than later (they'll be smaller); sounds easier than it is, I know, but part of this is learning to trust your judgement. I found when I analysed my thought processes that I would suspect a correction was required but tended to wait for a larger visual clue to confirm... by which time it was too late. More often than not that initial suspicion was correct, so trust your instinct and get a small correction in the moment you even suspect it's required. 2. Many small corrections > one big one - when making corrections rather than try to get the exact control displacement required - which is tough to judge - for the stick, I started to use multiple small and fast pulses of the control column; if I was low on the basket I might put three very small but fast pulses of aft stick and then assess; maybe three more, no too much, 2 quick tiny pulses of forward stick now to get it back under control before I start to PIO too badly. 3. Alternate the dimensions - At first I found it easier to work alternately one dimension at a time; do a pitch correction, then a lateral correction; then a pitch correction then a lateral correction, etc. Now, if the tanking is going well, I don't consciously need to do this so much but on those occasions that I'm having a bad day (or night) it's actually a useful process to revert to, plus it breaks down the task in to a couple of more achievable steps to allow you to work your way in progressively.

Any time you move the stick laterally you should be coordinating with rudder correspondingly. For a right turn from level - 1. To initiate: Right aileron + Right rudder - this counters adverse yaw due to aileron input 2. Established desired bank angle: Centralise aileron + Reduced right rudder - this counters the adverse yaw from the outer wing travelling faster than the inner wing. Complications - as you tighten the turn you'll need to decrease right rudder (right turn)/increase left rudder (left turn) input to counter the gyroscopic precession and added P-factor effects.