DD_Fenrir

I have no particular stance on the issue - I see both sides of the argument and my personal feelings are that sometimes it's useful but at others it can be clunky. The content of my post directly addresses the manner in which you choose to berate, insult and belittle the work of some of the hardest working, communicative and considerate devs in this community and then have the temerity to expect something to change in your favour.

Way to go. Motivational speaking at it's finest.

My two cents: There aren't many stepping stones in other aspects of DCS to help those who wish to progress in a given task to master it, and as such it tends to be a hurdle that you overcome or you don't. That said, AAR is a particularly steep hurdle, and can be dishearteningly frustrating - I was fortunate in that I was able to get proficient relatively quickly (though it must be said I'd rather take a basket than a boom any day!). However, I have seen many of my squad mates try repeatedly, despite the best help I can give, to fail to either connect or maintain the connection when attempting AAR even after many hours of trying. And some of these guys can fly reasonable combat formations. They just struggle with the PIO elements that dominate the neophyte AAR experience. This limits the scope of missions I can propose; or it punishes those who might get trapped in a dogfight and obliged to use more fuel than they had planned to land away from their home base, crash or eject, because they dread the thought of trying to AAR, especially in front of their friends. For that reason alone I'd welcome as easier AAR option. There could a fairly simple workaround that could be used as an aid to work up to sustained contact with the basket/boom. As a difficulty option, selectably overridden by servers have a Defined 3D Zone behind the tanker which, after communicating the necessary rejoin requests becomes visible as a translucent cube/cone, whatever. By flying and keeping your aircraft within this area you are automatically transferred fuel. Maybe you could have Zone size selectable or scalable to help those who wish to progress make the Zone smaller and thus gradually work towards the ultimate goal of realistic plugging. I'm a fairly hardcore DCSer and prefer to do most things as per prototype - but I for one would welcome the implementation of a feature that would ease the learning gradient of AAR - which to some can seem vertical and almost insurmountable - for the sake of my squadmates and the entry level DCSers. As long as I can still do it the authentic way, it's no skin off my nose.

Possibly; until you develop the muscle memory required to not over-G the Cat it is very easy to jerk the plane into high onset G rates and inadvertently pull loads of 9-10G, particularly in the 400-500 knot range. That's enough to make the INS throw a tantrum and knock-out navigational and trajectory information systems but not to rip wings off.

There is another factor - on the B in particular; the idle thrust of the GE F110s is very high and if coming in too high or too fast, a power down correction might resort the pilot having to go to idle power if the deviation is large enough. That can be risky - if you over-correct (stay idle too long) you have the spool up time of the motors to account for and it maybe a few seconds before the power-up begins to bite and where you were too high too fast, you suddenly find yourself too low and/or too slow. Close in that could be fatal, By having the airbrake out it means your throttle down changes have more effect, more quickly and you are therefore less likely find yourself in the above predicament.

BTW: if you're spinning at high AoA you've either: Stayed beyond 15-17 units of AoA too long and let the speed get too low, or You're trying to roll using lateral stick inputs above 20 units AoA, or Both Learn to dogfight keeping the AoA to 15-17 units and be patient. Also remember to coordinate rudder and lateral stick at this mark. Take brief excursions to the 20 and above mark if you must to defend or gain angles but regain the energy spent as soon as you can by unloading when possible. And if you must make rolling manoeuvers at anywhere above 20 units then DO NOT USE LATERAL STICK; keep it centered and work the roll using the rudders; there is significant roll inertia using pedals in this regime but you can get used to it. Use the stick and the spoilers will induce roll OPPOSITE to the way you wish to roll. Also if engaging in BFM it is advisable to disable the Roll Stability Augmentation System to help mitigate uncommanded roll inputs being generated by the system in it's attempts to keep up your inputs in the high AoA regime.

My 2-cents: At high AoA the stabilators and the vertical tail surfaces will be in the aerodynamic shadow of the "pancake" and will be subject to the turbulent airflow coming off it, plus the "pancake" is so large that it itself will be being hammered by the turbulence generated from the leading edges. The "pancake" is large so significant amounts of turbulent airflow will be generated and at anywhere above 15 units where the ratio of lift-drag starts to favour the latter, you will be generating a lot of turbulence. Ref: the MiG-21 comment, I find it surprising that this needs to be asked; the MiG was designed 15 years before the Tomcat and represents the manned missile school of interceptors; the Tomcat represents one of the first 4th generation aircraft where consideration of high AoA controllabilty and agility was a major factor. The thing was literally designed to out-rate and out-radius the MiG-21 and F-4 - these two were used as benchmarks to improve upon as part of the design specification.

Experienced the same.

Sorry, yes you're quite correct; brain farts are coming more frequently in my advancing years! Corrected the advice post accordingly, thanks drac.

Similar to the clipped wings we see the broader chord rudder with the pointed tail only become standard in the ETO with the introduction of the mk XVI. They were a production feature of the mk VII and mk VIII and a few examples found their way to the odd LF.IX in the latter part of 1944 but were uncommon.

Stennis has no deck crew. Line up manually on the catapult and move forward till you're nose gear is just behind the cat shuttle. Use F2 view to assist if necessary. Kneel the cat to lower your launch bar Press "U" to connect to the shuttle. If you're correctly positioned the Launch bar will lock into the shuttle and the Jet Blast Deflector will raise. If not you may need to move closer to the shuttle or raise the Launch Bar and reset your approach completely. Once connected, go to Full Military Power Press 'Left Shift+U' by default (or whatever you have mapped to your 'Launch Catapult' key binding) to initiate the catapult.

Nealious, is this just after lift off? Do you leave the ground and it happens a few seconds after you get some air under the wheels?

1. Unless you have to, avoid 3000 RPM/18lb boost and rather stay at 2850 RPM/12lb 2. Avoid getting under 140mph IAS. 3. Do NOT make extended steep/vertical climbs and NEVER tail slide. 4. Only turn as tight as you need to at any given moment; the Spit will give you vast amounts of turn rate but at the expense of airspeed so manage it carefully, ref point 2.

Have to say I too am getting a very low hit % in TWS with the Phoenixes, both A & C. Been using Kabas Cage the Bear campaign and the Southern Watch missions (ergo, single player) that shipped with the F-14, and thus far have only a 25% hit rate against fighters launched ~co-alt and 0.8-1.0 mach and ranges 20-25nm. This compares to ~75% prior to the new API. Watching some of the missiles in they do not appear to be making much/enough mid course corrections when under datalink command - thus when they do go pitbull the target is often wide of their radar cone or so far to the limits the missile is obliged to pull massive g and bleed it's remaining airspeed to pull it's nose on to interception course and is subsequently defeated kinematic-ally.

Good lord, some people just can't take no for an answer. And if your feverish hard-on for PTID let you convince yourself that Heatblur had committed to a PTID model (which they never had, and said 99% likely never will because all the information on that system is still classified) then that's your the fault of your own overactive and over-entitled imagination. Get over yourselves, seriously. It's downright undignified.

It's not just speed related chaps; you can damage the torque tubes applying g whilst the flaps are moving, particularly with rotational g.

Okay chaps, guide is reattached to the Original Post. Thanks to River for pointing out it's absence and to Art-J for reposting in the interim; much obliged gents.

Sukebe, I suggest you wind your neck in. There have been long discussions in these forums and on the SoW Discord, some very heated, regrading this issue, already. Conclusion? Some West front 109 units had MW50 equipped G-6s in the run up to and during Overlord, and the G-14 which started to appear some time in July was equipped as standard. You know very well we have neither variant of those types in game. The current Bf 109K-4 drivers complained loudly that without MW50 the K-4 performance was worse than a G-6 with, but closer with MW50 to the same. In order to compromise and attempt to appease all sides the SoW admin chose to make MW50 available to the 109s for a select number of missions set later in the month. You are very late to the party and in no position to pass judgment. Your condescension suggests you believe the SoW admins should give a flying fornication what you think.

Hi Nealius, not a Tomcat SME but did a great deal of glider training in the past so VERY familiar with yaw strings! 1. Step opposite the string - tail of string flows right, step left 2. At very high Angles of Bank referencing the yaw string is probably unwise as you will be using Beta (yaw angle of attack) to (a) generate lift with the airframe (b) vector some of your thrust to resist gravity. Therefore you should NOT want to straighten the string in those instances.

Perhaps lose the attitude Fox. Your initial post was inflammatory, not a little xenophobic and by it's nature bound to rub people up the wrong way. So too almost every other response since. Are you obliged to like the Spitfire? Of course not. But nobody is obliged to agree with you either.

Rough rule of thumb: if HARM TOO TD box is at 9° below the horizon then the range in nm = your altitude in 1,000s of feet. E.g.: Angels 20, range = 20nm (depression angle 9°) Angels 25, range = 25nm (depression angle 9°) Angels 30, range = 30nm (depression angle 9°) If the depression Angle is <9° the target is further away than the corresponding altitude/1000 If the depression Angle is >9° the target is closer than the corresponding altitude/1000

Depends entirely on the variant referenced, when, and in comparison what to. The B Mk.IV in 1942 could certainly outrun the Fw 190A3 and Bf 109F4/G2 - numerous accounts, from both sides, support this. The B Mk.IX in 1943 at 20,000ft could just was as quick as a Spitfire LF.IX; this puts it marginally slower than a Fw 190A-5 and the Bf 109G-6. However it was a night bomber, so it did not have to face them. It's opponents in the most part were radar festooned Bf110s and Ju-88s which it could. Similarly the B Mk.XVI. Now for the FB Mk.VI we are slated to get: In 1944 when the test was made it's opponents were the Fw 190A-6/7 and the Bf 109G-6. From the charts I've read, without MW-50 at 5100ft a Bf 109G-6 can manage ~326mph. An Fw 190A-8 is showing in various configurations between 348mph & 364mph A Bf 109K-4 with MW-50 at 5,100ft from the charts looks to be ~392mph. This is not surprising. Speed advantages leap frogged across aircraft variants throughout the war. And don't forget that fighter-bomber Mosquito pilots were not looking for a fight; they flew low and fast to avoid detection and mitigate interception. You may well as a Jagdwaffe pilot in his Bf 109K-4 spotted a Mosquito but if it's already clipping along at a fair old lick you have to work out firstly if it's seen you and if he has whether you have the height, airspeed, and critically the fuel or MW-50 to run him down before you have to break off and go home; it's assumed you have burnt a good portion of your fuel getting to the spot where you have seen the Mossie, and if you can't catch him in 10 minutes (your MW-50 allowance), you won't likely catch him at all. Given that K-4s were not the numerically significant variant, what about all your other friends who are bashing about in late model Gs...? So yeah, "fastest aircraft of WW2" is media sensationalism at it's worst, but then that is hardly surprising. "Usefully fast against the majority of it's opponents" is more accurate.

Likewise. I fly the Spitty regularly, often for an hour or more without between takeoff and landing and have not seen this occur since a fix was announced some 18 months ago after the community reported a spate of occurrences happening after 20-30 minutes of flight time. Not to deny that you chaps currently experiencing it are, however, it does suggest something unique to your local machine/installation. Are you using any Spitfire gunsight mods? If no, have you tried running a repair of DCS world?

The shaking is buffet and wing drop is the aircraft stalling. You are over-pitching. The stick is very sensitive - as it should be - but the issue is exacerbated by a mis-match in the stick geometry of the real aircraft and what is typically used by gamer. It is an issue that effects most DCS aircraft to a lesser degree unless you have a 1-to-1 scale stick replica. However, in the Spitfire, it's stick travel to critical AoA compared to overall stick throw is tiny and exacerbates this issue exponentially. Outlined here: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/dcs-wo...pitch-solution Regards engine, it overheats if you grind circles in the sky under 140mph. Even if you start a fight at 250mph+ but you're yanking the aircraft into the stall regularly (which you are), you will bleed speed fantastically and drive your speed down to a flight regime where you will find it (a) hard to control and (b) keep the engine cool. You need airflow for cooling... this shouldn't be a surprise. The Spitfire will out-turn most aircraft at 160 IAS so there shouldn't be need to get into that dangerous <140mph region. So: don't make high speed stalls whilst trying to get a guns solution - adjust your control curves and develop the finesse required to mange the Spitfire's AoA and speed with it. don't make sustained vertical manouevres (stall turns or tail slides) whilst you've got the throttles or RPM pinned forward. Regards engine management, there are go to presets that you can and should memorise: 1. Combat or Interception climb - 2850 RPM and 12lb Boost. Keep IAS >160mph. 1 hour limit. 2. Cruising out for trouble but need to get height reasonably promptly - 2650 RPM and 7lb Boost. Keep IAS >160mph. No time limit. 3. Got a long flight ahead of me - 2400 RPM & 4lb Boost or even lower to get lower fuel consumption. 4. Get into a fight? Go to 2850 & 12. Only use 3000RPM and 18lb in extremis. Keep your IAS >160, 180 is better for cooling and if you do go WEP (3000 and 18lb) then don't grind holes in the sky cos she'll overheat even quicker than the nominal 5 minute limit "allowed". Really only use WEP for chasing down or running from an enemy aircraft - keep it fast, don't start dogfighting and getting slow. 5. Don't over boost the engine (high MAP/Low RPM) as this will kill it quickly. This no different to ANY Allied fighter with Max Continuous, Combat and WEP RPM and Manifold Pressure settings. Regards visibilty - the Spitfire first flew came out in 1936 - the Mustang in 1940. 4 years difference in development. The 109 is a closer design contemporary and if you think visibility is any better from that aircraft...well you need an eye test. Personally I think you thought you found an excuse to do some Brit bashing and came in here to smack-talk a much loved icon, when in reality, the plane has compromises, like any other, and is otherwise a very capable machine and can be a delight to fly and fight. The real issue is your apparent unwillingness do any research whatsoever, combined with a lack of finesse when understanding aircraft handling or engine management - something which apparently most of us DCS Spitfire drivers (and so the historical record would indicate, the gentlemen obliged to fly her in combat for real) don't seem to have a problem with.

You LITERALLY have an SME who ACTUALLY FLEW THE TOMCAT AND BROKE THE FLAPS say IN THIS FORUM that they were fragile and only to be used in a low G, low airspeed environment else you'd break them. But of course you know better eh? "Muh Books!" Please. This desperate effort to enforce a game-ism has gotten downright undignified. Time and again it has been iterated, the goal here is to as faithfully as possible reproduce the Tomcat in digital form, not only as a means of entertainment but also for education, as a historical record to pay homage to a much loved, well respected and important piece of naval aviation history, plus in some measure as tribute to the men and women who designed, built, maintained and flew it, as we in a small way will begin to understand their challenges and their determination. It will not be to cosset the egos of those who so desperately need to to validate their own existence that they'll resort to any means necessary to win a computer game dogfight.