DD_Fenrir

F4 on some aircraft gives a wing root view; you can thereafter change the external camera's FoV to hide the external model of the aircraft "out of frame" so to speak.

I hear you DB, and when it lands I'll be buying it for the same reasons - a DCS level 262 will be fascinating. However, as a proponent of an authentic and cohesive DCS WW2 environment for both single- & multi-player there are multiple aircraft that we'd be better served having ED prioritise their development efforts in. That or a Siegfried line Map.

Regular customer investment = ED financial viability = continued development/asset additions

Give us a Westwall map and yeah, 262 is valid. As it stands, it's completely irrelevant to the theatres we have. The chronological ADHD is bad enough, let's not make it any worse.

I'm using argument in it's second definition: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory. One apparent position of the discussion is that more varied types brings greater enjoyment through variety; my point is that a don't wholly agree; an interception against medium bomber Type A versus an interception against medium bomber Type B might bring minor tactical decision changes (Type A has better defensive zones of fire here, Type B there) but ultimately in the long run will still be a medium bomber interception. In these cases the environment and mission design will play a far greater factor; if you're bored of escorting B-17s at high altitude put a bunch of A-20s to bomb from medium altitude instead, then put a cloud layer above and below and get the AI to sneak attack through the cloud so they get in close before you're aware. Set randomizers through triggers so you don't know when you'll be attacked or from what altitude or angle. Build tension. This is what makes for interesting missions. I'm not averse to the addition of ANY chronologically relevant AI aircraft (or ground) assets, and a B-26 is certainly one of them; it was the single most numerous Allied medium in the ETO in the late war and as such would be very welcome by me. Equally P-38J and Typhoon Ib are noticeably absent and important types that deserve inclusion. A Do-217 would also benefit Mosquito night intruder (codename: Flower) operations but on reflection the Ju-88 is a more than adequate stand in and at night do you really care? You'll barely see it anyway! RAF heavies would be nice but DCS WW2 is a daytime endeavour currently and incomplete even in that regard; as noted there are some important AI aircraft types that could be usefully included but furthermore there are countless ships, both Allied and Axis that are nowhere to be seen (Liberty ship anyone?) as well as an array of towed artillery types, fuel bowsers, ambulances, self propelled AAA that would be far more susceptible to player air attack than the current crop of armoured units and provide more achievable mission goals. If dev time is, as it seems, at a premium, I would argue lets get daytime DCS ETO fleshed out to a better degree then worry about elements that can be ported over to night ops.

I find this argument somewhat redundant; after all, as a WW2 fighter pilot you had a fairly limited job dob description any way: 1. Interception/Combat Air Patrol 2. Bomber/Strike Escort 3. Ground attack Ultimately the circumstances are going to be the major variables: location, numbers engaged, weather, time of day and altitude. The type engaged has some tactical bearing I grant you, but is engaging, say, a Do-217 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber) really going to feel that different to engaging a Ju-88 (a medium altitude twin engine bomber). And why have we forgotten the A-20? B-17s should be bombing from 20,000ft+, whereas the A-20s tended to bomb in the 10,000-18,000ft range. This can change the tactical environment significantly; for example the Fw 190A-8 will perform far better at typical A-20 operational altitudes than at those used for the B-17 so will be a more dangerous opponent to the escort of a medium bomber raid than it would to those protecting B-17s. Or you can get low and dirty and provide cover to some P-47s interdicting targets in France, dodging the flak with them. The imminent arrival of the Mosquito will provide further opportunities to provide low level escort missions. It boils down to this: real WW2 fighter pilot mission were repetitive; look through the Operational Record Books of any fighter squadron and you will see the same mission type again and again. For example, 132 Squadron of the RAF, equipped with Spitfire IXs, their ORBs throughout the winter of 1943 to D-Day are a veritable litany of "rendezvous with 76 x B-26 mid channel @ 12,000ft"; what changed was the time of day, the weather, and the target and also whether they even saw any enemy activity. On many of these shows not even the flak bothered, and to even see an enemy aircraft - let alone engage it - was something of a rarity.

France was liberated by the time of their introduction into service.

Not at all. I personally would like to see a 150 grade option for the Jug and Pony, if only for flexibility and options. My point has always been show those elements who demand 150 octane in face of the MW50 fighters and claim it’s unrealistic to not have it, that actually, real USAAF airmen faced this very issue and considering the de facto tactical air focus of DCS, it’s actually a better representation of history considering the available maps to not have it. Should we ever get a North Sea map with 8th Air Force bases and strategic targets for B-17s you will then find me clamouring for 150 octane options.

Ha!! Yeah, cos if you're operating on the continent and all your fuel supply has to be shipped to you via a pipeline under the English Channel, you just pick and choose the fuel grade you're supplied with. Seriously, must try harder. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html It's literally the first hit in a google search for "150 grade octane usaaf". Exhibit A: Exhibit B: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/2-supply-23nov44s.jpg So whilst 9th Air Force Units in the late winter of 1943 and spring of 1944 did indeed support 8th Air Force bomber formations, they - like 8th Fighter Command - were all still using 100 octane. By the time 150 octane is being introduced the 9th are now busy doing the job they were specifically brought to the ETO for - direct close air support of their troops or escort to mediums striking tactical targets. No P-47 or P-51 operating from the European continent in WW2 was able to benefit from 150 octane. Done.

Bapaume-Grévillers: Forgotten airfields europe

The asphalt areas are for starting your take-off run from or making your initial touchdown whilst landing. You are supposed to run on to the grass to complete your take-off roll or landing roll-out. It's not unique; Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory used a similar feature for when they test flew production Lancasters; the concrete supports the static weight of aircraft for run-up and mag tests and the initial portion of the run, but once rolling the grass was perfectly able to support the Lanc and provided no drama.

I posted this on Discord but it bears repeating: Otherwise, Krupi is right. An extra set of eyes is never a bad thing and the Nav can help with accessing cockpit controls, particularly during emergency procedures. Regards radio, everything I have read indicates that the pilot was responsible for any external communications. The pilot also was responsible for bomb/weapon release. These apply to the FB.VI version we will be getting. In the bomber variants, the Nav would be also responsible for getting Gee fixes, bomb aiming and bomb/TTI release. In the night fighters, they were both the radar operator and (when on offensive night fighting) also supposed to be primary navigators, though in reality they often shared the navigation responsibility with the pilots particularly where ROs had been trained for defensive night fighting in 41-43 and thus hadn't been expected to navigate (beyond picking up airfield beacons to direct the pilots home).

*Sigh* You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you did you’d realise that your argument holds absolutely no water. The primary source evidence is out there on the internet. I strongly suggest you go educate yourself. Come back and make informed opinions and then maybe you’ll be worth having a discussion with.

It ain't that simple. The 9th Tactical Air Force of the US Army Air Force, that providing direct support to the ground forces never operated with 150 octane. Ever. Period. However, the 8th Air Force, running the Strategic Bomber Campaign into the heart of the Reich, did. Whilst the 8th Air Force Fighter Command were sequestered to help on the tactical battle field for about 2 weeks over Normandy commencing with D-Day, thereafter they went back to escorting the bombers hitting primarily fuel targets across Germany. There were also some brief interludes around the Battle of the Bulge in December. So if you were a Reichsverteidigung Jagdflieger you'd have been far more likely to bump into Mustangs pulling 72", and P-47s pulling 67". If you were a front pilot the Mustangs you met would have been 67" and the T-bolts 57". Given the restricted map sizes available in DCS this automatically tends to focus the operations to those of a Tactical nature, ergo 100 octane variants would be most appropriate.

That's all well and good but, in reality the performance benefits between these later variants and their earlier iterations of them are negligible. The difference between a K-4 and a G-6 is a bit more than negligible. The point has been made time and time and time again, and yes a Westwall map would have made far more sense but RRG went for Normandy for the $$$. The only aircraft that currently 100% fit the Normandy map timeframe are the Spit and the Anton. However, the P-51 and P-47 perform as near as identically to the marks in use at that time to make no difference, so we are obliged to overlook the inconsistencies. We are stuck with it. Do I like it? No. I'd rather have P-51B/Cs, Razorback P-47s, a 109G-6/14 for Normandy and a Winter West Front Map for 1944/1945 to use the K-4 and Dora on. But we will wait a long time for that. Many 109 pilots have proved online that whilst the K-4 w/o MW50 has some disadvantages against it's opponents it also has some excellent strengths and is still very competitive if flown intelligently. This brings it inline with all the other types, which all have strengths and weaknesses which need to be harnessed (or exploited).

As for point 2... 1. The closer you can get the less lead you need. Easier said than done, as we are already discussing, 2. If the target seems to be pulling a constant turn rate try pulling your gunsight steadily through him in a good coordinated tracking solution and fire a short (0.5 second) burst as he disappears under the nose; relax back pressure as soon as you release the trigger to pull him back into the gunsight and make a damage assessment. Also, the AI tend to react to taking hits and may break out of the turn when taking fire, so the latter is important to keep your erstwhile target in sight. 3. Your lag pursuit into a lower lead solution is a perfectly valid but has, as you identify, the issue of taking time and reliance of a stupid move by the opponent. That said, it's one I have been obliged to use on more than one occasion. 4. The last option is to lead him so aggressively on the closing stage that you end up performing a move akin to when you overshoot a formation rejoin; you cross behind his tail too fast and too close for a reliable snapshot but use the Spits excellent pitch authority to pull back in for a low 6 attack.

Even according to the DCS Spitfire Manual, there should be a bypass system in the radiator circuit such that should the coolant temperature drop <80 the coolant is switched to NOT route through the radiators... Must be unserviceable at the mo...

Which is why a Bf 109G-6/G-14 would be a wise and very welcome addition to DCS. That or a Westwall map....

I find when watching others dogfight videos that when they are trying to close on a turning target they are habitually not allowing enough lead. If you're 500-1000 yards behind just putting the gunsight a ring or two in front is simply not sufficient. Your erstwhile target has to be in your quarter windows if you are to gain angles and range promptly, akin to a bearing line rejoin for getting reformed on a leader.

Night fighter variants are kind of irrelevant to DCS WW2 currently - a C-6 Ju-88 kind of makes sense.

I hope they NEVER change it just to provide you with ongoing source of torment to the end of your days because you richly deserve it.

Way to go insulting devs. What a pretentious, obnoxious little diva.

That 5 for 5 engagement being referenced is I suspect from the Banff strike wing, in which case their opponents would have been Fw 190A-8s from JG5. From reports I have read, the Mossie should be just barely even (though not quite) with an Fw 190A-8 a in a traditional turn fight; however, I suspect this is probably in the first half of a 180. The Mossie is heavier and I suspect will bleed speed mightily as the turn prolongs. Acceleration of the Fw is good, though how the Mossie compares...? Power loading is similar and the Mossie nudges ahead on wingloading but induced drag is key in the turn fight, and will remain to be seen. As for K-4s? I suspect they'll have few issues, being able to out turn and out climb the wooden wonder, but the Mossie could still be dangerous if taken for granted. Those 4 x 20mm could punish you severely if you push a bad position or get too low on energy. The D-9s will be half way between - don't turn with it, keep your speed up and BnZ his ass. Standard D-9 M.O.! Summary? Mossie will be required to be respected and may surprise a few erstwhile DCS Jagdwaffe flyers who may be expecting an easy kill.

You know it might be wise to fact check your opinions before posting… you might be surprised. There’s about 60, by the way. However, regards to the other types, I agree. Typhoon, Beaufighter, Beaufort, Hampden… there are are lot of unrepresented less glamorous types that are sadly missing from the flying register.

10 stacks = single stage Merlin (i.e. 21/23/25) 12 stacks = two stage Merlin (i.e. 72/73 or 76/77)