DD_Fenrir

1. A fighter Group consisted of three squadrons. As far as I am aware, squadron codes remained consistent throughout the stay in theatre for both 8th and 9th Air Force Units. 8th Air Force Fighter Groups by April of 1944 had a common nose colour for all their squadrons with different colour rudders denoting particular squadrons appearing later in 1944; the 9th Air Force was not so consistent in this aspect, and each Squadron in the same group had a different nose colour but often in the same design. This meant in the 9th that two separate squadrons from two different groups could theoretically have the same nose colour, but a different design pattern. A lot of the 9th Air Force groups seemed to modify their colours in early 1945. Examples: 8th Air Force 353rd Fighter Group - P-47D then P51B/C/D from October 1944 350th Fighter Squadron Code: LH Markings: Early '44 - white nose band; Mid '44 - yellow & black diamond checkerboard; Late '44 - yellow & black striped spinner and deep square checkerboard noseband, yellow rudder 351st Fighter Squadron Code: YJ Markings: Early '44 - white nose band, Mid '44 - yellow & black diamond checkerboard; Late '44 - yellow & black striped spinner and deep square checkerboard noseband, no specific colour on rudder 352nd Fighter Squadron Code: SX Markings: Early '44 - white nose band, Mid '44 - yellow & black diamond checkerboard; Late '44 - yellow & black striped spinner and deep square checkerboard noseband, black rudder 9th Air Force 354th Fighter Group - P51B/C/D, then P-47D from November 1944, then P-51D from mid February 353rd Fighter Squadron Code: FT Markings: Early '44 - white nose band; Mid/late '44 - yellow spinner with yellow and black sawtooth nose band; '45 - yellow spinner & noseband 355th Fighter Squadron Code: GQ Markings: Early '44 - white nose band; Mid/late '44 - blue spinner with blue & white checker panel/noseband; '45 - blue spinner with blue & white checker panel/noseband http://soyuyo.main.jp/p51/p51dg02.jpg 356th Fighter Squadron Code: AJ Markings: Early '44 - white nose band; Mid/late '44 - white spinner & white stars on blue nose band; '45 - red spinner & noseband 2. This was generally only during a transition period. The Squadrons generally tried not to operate mixed flights, but there were occasions where a group would sortie a mixed group, (i.e. 1x squadron P-51, 2x squadrons P-47s). The 352nd FG is a good example of the latter. The method of training varied, particularly during the early introduction of the Mustang, when there were scarce few around, and not enough it seems to equip an entire Group at once. If we take the 4th FG for example, they flew ops with their P-47s and trained on the Pony in between (not for that long apparently!) until their CO Don Blakeslee deemed them combat ready on the P-51, and there were sufficient P-51 airframes to make them operationally viable. This seems to be the pattern followed by later Groups converting to the Mustang; the 20th, 55th, 78th, 339th, 353rd, 355th, 356th, 359th, 361st & 479th FG all follow this pattern, and as the war progresses and more and more pilots and airframes are available at the squadron level, not every pilot is on every mission and it meant type conversions could happen that much more quickly. It even gets to the point towards the end of Autumn of 44 that a single squadron could provide enough manned airframes that instead of one formation of 16 aircraft it could provide 2 formations of 12, allowing a single FG to commit two understrength Groups to combat.

My 3 year old daughter occasionally likes to have a go at flying (crashing) aircraft in DCS (at least for as long as her attention span allows) so I can well understand the OPs request. The only unreasonable part of this discussion are those condescending or disparaging comments by those who are so profoundly ignorant to family life that their opinions are irrelevant.

Funny, lots of other people seem to get on with Jester just fine, even PvP. But it couldn't possibly be your error... Amazing how many blame Jester for the AWG-9 radar's limitations. F-14 crews regularly had to adjust their tactics to make the best of it, seems like too many here just expect it to be an all seeing all tracking wundermachine that turns a RIO into an omniscient battle god. Could Jester jump to P-STT a bit more reliably? Sure, but that doesn't mean he never manages to hold a track on a bandit attempting to notch - many a time I've seen the TID repeater pop black as he's - unrequested - manged to discern the sudden change in closure and switch before the bandit manages to drop into the notch. But maybe that's because I regularly try to engage from a couple of Angels below the bandits altitude so that the radars looking up and doesn't get lost in the ground clutter. If your STT locking from >20 miles, you're always going to have some unreliable STT locks. Ask an F/A-18 guy with his Soild State radar that's 20 years younger than the AWG-9 if he ever drops tracks... Can he get a bit stuck with running IFF routines? Occasionally if there's a complex battle picture, but I find a quick reset to Auto Radar Mode via the Jester wheel tends to give him a nudge and he quickly gets back to what he should be doing. Is Jester perfect? Of course not. But considering the alternative, and the ground breaking attempt to provide a useful way of managing a complex Weapon System with some automated functions, I think he's a damn good and useful feature.

Some wings or squadrons within certain air forces with multi-role types do have a particular specialism they focus on within the air-to-ground purview (IIRC there's a USAF F-16 wing that pays particular attention to the Wild Weasel or SEAD/DEAD role) but that an air to air regime is practiced as regularly as possible to keep pilots current as it is a perishable skill.

Right, well, you guys enjoy your little "K-4 elevators were l33tz!!!" circle jerk Cosmic facepalm. Go find it yourself. Hint: IT'S LIERTALLY IN THESE FORUMS. Christ I understand that pigeon chess analogy all too well now.

Tell me, since you're so sure, what is the difference in area, and horn balance area/mass of the the K-4 vs the G series? And here is where we get to the crux. Spitfire and P-51 elevators having different profile, area, different positioning in airflow relative to wing, differing moment arms on the CoG, differing horn balance sizes etc, etc, etc. Jesus. BECAUSE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION - I.E. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E - TELLS US SO. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. You want the DCS K-4 to not have the stick forces of a G-2? Then find a stick force chart for a K-4. GET DATA. Your uneducated suppositions are useless.

Ok... So the A6M was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and as far as I am aware never by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). "Zeke" was the Allies official reporting name for the A6M; "Zero" was the Japanese nickname (Reisen) but this also became a common colloquialism among allied flyers. There were land based variants of the A6M produced without a tail-hook, because despite being Navy owned and operated, the IJN found itself with less and less carriers as the war progressed but still had island airfields to defend. The Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was given the reporting name "Oscar" was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA); however, given the similarity of layout (close cowled radial, low wing, bubble canopy) both types were frequently confused for each other.

Which only proves you failed to grasp my point. At higher air speeds the movement of the elevator is airload limited- whether it moves further or not is irrelevant; whether you ask the elevator to move 1 degree or 15 degrees the same stick force is required. It also shows you fail to understand the function of the mass balance.

Tell me again how difference in elevator travel changes results in a change in stick forces - really, I'm intrigued as to the physics you use to reach that conclusion.

What also needs to be borne in mind is that the A-4s used for Aggressor training are very different beasts to the A-4E we have in DCS; they were often stripped of their avionics and their pylons, reducing the aircrafts weight significantly and thus increasing their Thrust:Weight and reducing their wing loading. Some also had uprated engines, increasing the T:W even further. That said, bleeding your E in an A-4 dogfight is going to be an inevitability; with no afterburner you can't brute force your way through manoeuvres like the dedicated air superiority machines can. As Hiob says, you'll tend to nose low during sustained turns to try and mortgage some altitude for E but you'll have to fly smart and aggressive - and hope your opponent flies dumb - to be victorious. If your opponent hits the vertical anytime you try to force an overshoot or look like you're gaining angles, it's going to be a tough fight for even a hotrod A-4, let alone for you in a fleet standard jet carrying a lot of black boxes.

These, though made for the B will fit the A: Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3304485/ Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3304408/ Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3307715/

Maybe, if the elevator wasn't airspeed limited as seems to be the case.

These values are dynamic and hugely dependant on (a) the speed and altitude of the launch aircraft and (b) the aspect and closure rate of the target. There are no fixed values for these.

Gunpods ys MW50 tank is a weight and stability issue. If the profile and area of the elevator is unchanged, it will still generate the same amount of down force for a given stick deflection at a given speed, and there will be no change to stick forces. True, a rearward shift in CoG will reduce the moment arm of the elevator, reducing effectiveness, but will in no way effect the actual stick forces required to deflect the stick.

For those new to the discussion/issue of 109 elevator stick forces and control: 1. At this time there is no diagrammed stick force against airspeed chart currently known for the Bf 109K-4. 2. Data pertaining to the Bf 109G was used, from both German and Soviet period tests.* 3. There have been arguments that the elevator control system changed in the 'K', the claims were that this allows the pilot greater mechanical advantage but so far what few docs have surfaced have been reviewed by the lead FM programmer and after review he has stated that what changes there are cannot have the claimed effect. 4. ED have allowed for the virtual pilot to apply two-hands when displacing the virtual stick at these higher stick force regions. There is debate as to whether this is effective enough. Ultimately it's down to EDs lead FM programmer, Yo-Yo, with his wealth of experience, aerodynamic expertise and understanding of the DCS physics engine to decide what data to use/or extrapolate from; assume that he knows more than you. If in doubt search the DCS: Bf 109K-4 sub-forum for the evidence thus far presented. You will not have far to look. Unless you are able to provide unequivocal, substantive evidence that something is amiss, no amount of 'feelings', out of context anecdotes or suppositions will get you particularly far in getting anything changed. *the G-6 and 'K-4' are so close in tailplane-wing coupling, wing shape and elevator profile that it is not only logical but necessary at this tage to use some B 109G-6 data in the calculation of the FM.

Er....

More misdirection, no attempt to address the points actually raised. Amazingme modus operandi.

Bullshit - you called anyone who adjusts their curves in the DCS Spitfire a cheat. YOU LITERALLY SPELT THAT OUT ABOVE. HOW IS THAT NOT AN ATTACK? If you had even the faintest idea of what you were going on about you might have a leg to stand on, but time and again, and as so recently displayed by previous outburst you prove nothing but your biblical ignorance. I end up insulting you because time and again reasoned rational discussion fails to get through and I'm sick and tired of dealing with your stubborn ignorant ass. More inflammatory Bullshit. He's here and been posting regularly. A pretty feeble attempt at at pot stirring, I must say, given the ease at which the veracity of your claim is dispelled. WoW! Trying to adopt a veneer of respectability by calling for On Topic after taking your own toxic little tangent to go after the DCS Spitfire community? That's a level of hypocrisy that is just astounding! What a performance! You are a poisonous, deceitful little weasel. It's enough to make me hope the Bf 109 never gets fixed just to provide you an endless source of frustration to the end of your days.

Turning a discussuion on stick forces of the DCS Bf 109K into a attack on the Spitfire community. You really are an insufferable pillock.

A known bug Phil, the visual effect 'sprite' (for want of a better word) for the 88mm flak explosion at some point in the recent updates got changed to that of the 37/40mm effect. It used to look like this: I asked about this on the ED WW2 Discord server and Bignewy said the bug was reported.

The usual suspects are the Electric Fuel Pump and the Fuel Tank Pressure switch, but I see you have those covered. The next thing to ask is what RPM are you using trying to get that high? Because at some point to maintain enough Manifold Pressure (AKA Boost in RAF parlance) to generate the necessary climb rate you will have to have higher RPM settings...

You may have some fair points, but all of these have been answered elsewhere time and time and time again; As for F/A-18 radar features/functionality the Hornet is still in EA right? Until they declare the module as complete and state definitively they have the radar finished, it is reasonable to assume that some of this requires polishing. You also claim a lot of things about the real radars capabilities or lack thereof but present no data to prove you're correct. Time and again it comes down to supposition on your part. As for EW, I think everyone round here understands that EW in DCS is a problem child and that, yes, that puts FC3 aircraft at a disadvantage currently. But jamming effects are on the roadmap for inclusion in the FF aircraft. Having siad that, I've never used it as it seemed to have such a negligible effect on the outcome of a fight (burn through was always achieved well before RMax giving plenty of time to make tactical decisions based on the emerging picture).

The MiG-29A data could have come from any number of non-Russian sources; they were widely exported. The MiG-29S could simply be an estimate based on the numbers generated for the -A; weight of fuel and avionics + publicly available figures on the uprated engines applied to what is essentially the same airframe. As for avioinics, I don't think you get just how simplified the FC3 radars are... compare the FC3 F-15 to the DCS Hornet or F-16 radars, the latter are light years more complicated in both modelling, functionality and complexity, despite the F-15s being on a paper a more powerful and capable radar. Yes they obey certain specific -but generic - principles (PD notches etc) but these radar characteristics are widely and publicly known. Pigeon-chess analogy. And you ain't the pigeon...

Oh my gosh, you guys are right!!! All this time! ED must be a part of the western global-nexus that drip feed capitalist propaganda to the masses! How did I not see that before?!?!?

But Nealius, that's not useful data. How many other German aircraft engaging the bombers suffered damage but landed, or crew injury that didn't render the aircraft a loss? Those would still count as percentile hits, no? At some point, you want to calculate the probability of whether the gunner will hit the target; whether that target is brought down or not depends on (a) the number of rounds landed and (b) the Damage Models calculations on the damage those rounds have done. Ergo whether the target is downed or not is kind of irrelevant when discussing calculations for gunner accuracy. You want to do it right you need a controlled test.