DD_Fenrir

The Spit (and the 109 coincidentally) suffer from power on - tail heavy trim at low airspeeds/higher AoAs. Simply put, at these regimes a portion of the propellers thrust is actually vectored in the vertical and due to the neutral static stability of the airframe there is not enough inherent longitudinal stability to compensate naturally for this. This manifests itself in the airframe "self-tightening" turns and loops as airspeed drops and is noted behaviour; Dave Southwood, a highly regarded modern era test pilot and a high hours Spitfire and 109/Buchon pilot mentions this very characteristic. I suspect this is playing a part, though your description sounds more violent; can you provide a track file for review? Maybe we can work out what's happening.

I'm not trying to be your enemy here, Nealius; but you should know that you appear to others to be coming across embittered and not a little entitled. And trust me when I tell you that this last paragraph of yours strikes a chord I understand only too well; I cannot begin to tell you the hours I've spent across many years and many different simulators (mainly WW2) attempting to recreate historical fact as closely as possible. It's a frustrating thing hitting hurdles, those limitations of the engine, the architecture, the topography or the AI, all or any those things that prevent us achieving the level of authenticity we desire - I know it only too well and have experienced it more times than I can count. The trouble is we are a small sub-set; the vast majority won't mind that the name on the jet isn't right, or that every plane has the same modex - we do because we like to do a job right to that last 99.99%, because for us the Devil is in the details, and it sticks in our craw. But a greater majority will enjoy the content for what it is because they either don't mind or don't care. You can only do so much: after you've highlighted the issues to those who have the power to change things then you have no further control. If things change for the better, great, but that is rare. Otherwise you just have to carry on, accept the limitations for what they are and do your best to mitigate/obviate/obscure them and recognise that there are some that will just have to stand - and they will stand; stand out like the proverbial sore thumb to you... Others, however, if they are decent will understand what you are fighting and appreciate what work you do for the effort you go to and enjoy it anyway. Most will enjoy it without much heed to the errors. Some - not so descent - will point out the very issues you can do nothing about and lay criticism. Ignore them. They boost their own ego by pointing out flaws in others work whilst bringing nothing to the table themselves and are therefore worthless of time, energy or regard. I'd love to see the level of cohesiveness pervade across the DCS eras that you aspire to; I have been and still am fighting for it in the DCS WW2 assets. I'd like to see an SH3 and a Spruance to make '80s Tomcat scenarios a bit more so, plus Nimitz, Enterprise and JFK so we could put the right cats, from the right sqaudrons on the right carriers for the right mission on the right map. But in the near term these things are just not going to be achievable without investment in either time, money or both. Heatblur are not obliged to present every possible variation of an F-14 skin - ED do not for their modules, why should HB be demanded to go further? ED put a handful of liveries in and then leave the community to full the gaps. HB do what they can to provide an interesting subset, a cross section of examples that - let's face it - at the end of the day provide eye-candy for the general user, and then do the same. Going to the lengths you desire would require 100s of man-hours of work, for the research alone and then doing the skins on top? It's just not cost effective for an $80 module based on all the content we are already getting. They're looking at the modex issue further down the line but as we know it is highly complex and furthermore there are limits as to how flexible the core code is to the level of desired variance that could be achieved.

Firstly, your idea is not necessarily a bad one, but it certainly isn't "The Way" and not everyone is going to share your vision. Secondly no-one is obliged to do a damn thing for you. You've been asking for a year? Great. What difference does that make? You could ask for 100, doesn't entitle you to a thing. Skinning takes dedication, many hours and - I find at least - a requirement to be in the right frame of mind. And more importantly it takes away from what I enjoy most - spending time in the virtual cockpit. Is it any surprise then that skinners will do their passion projects before all others? And considering the complexity of the F-14 template might wanna take a break and actually 'fly' the skins they have made after spending many hours in their construction. So, the question really is: What have you done to earn those man-hours from a skinner?

Mainly cos its an argument that doesn't hold any water.

Hi Jason. Could you save a .trk replay for us to review; it'll be easier to see what's going on and what you're doing rightly or wrongly and give you the correct advice. As a related thing have you seen this?: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/dcs-world-tutorial-training-range/guides-tutorials/module-specific-tutorials/dcs-spitfire-lf-mk-ix-tutorials/262955-spitfire-too-sensitive-in-pitch-solution It may be a start in helping with some of your control issues.

You don't get FM data from having access to the flyable versions - that comes from period wind tunnel test (which there was apparently enough to model the K-4 and D-9 to a level that Yo-Yo deemed satisfactory) or - as with the P-47 - CFD modelling. What the flyables give you - or more accurately what the pilots of these do - is the nuances, idiosyncrasies and peculiarities of an individual airframe's flight characteristics that escape the wind tunnel or CFD modellings resolution. There are potential micro-transactions of aerodynamic interaction that slip under the radar in these tests but which cumulatively can result in distinct and unique feedback to the pilot that no amount of data can really elaborate; the flavour of the aeroplane if you will. Erich Brunotte was a fabulous resource in this regard, but ultimately something of an exceptional case - you'd be hard pressed to find another living veteran with such sagacity, and spectacular powers of clarity and recall. Alas, we are losing more and more of them every month, and with the passing of each, the chance of discovering a Typhoon or Tempest veteran with such a lucid and comprehensive ability to not only remember the necessary data but to be able to impart that knowledge in useful manner, diminishes further. I do believe we will have to wait for flyable restorations of these types before we see DCS versions thereof, as despite combing through my not inconsiderable library, there just isn't cohesive or detailed enough anecdotal evidence to really describe the flight characteristics of these aircraft to the degree demanded of by ED.

https://flyingheritage.org/Explore/The-Collection/Germany/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-D-13-(Dora).aspx From my understanding it was restored to airworthy and ground ran a few times, but as the article says, being the only example of the type, they won't fly it (I'd imagine the insurance alone could be prohibitive in that regard).

Cos they didn't "go back" - the plan has been from day 1 to provide an -A variant along with the -B. The choice to make the -B first would I suspect come down to accessibility - it's the easier of the two for players to manage and fall in love with, then provide the more challenging -A for those who want an extra level of spice. There are no plans for making a -D. HB have repeated this many times across this forum. Why? Certain systems within the D pertaining to the APG-71, PTID and others remain classified and HB, without the information, won't bother trying to even guess how they work, let alone try to simulate them accurately, how can they?

Re-updated as something had not caused the png rendering to be very clear so now they are clearer; also added an 30 degree off boresight azimuth diagram to illustrate that scan patterns are not tied to boresight.

Hi all, I updated the original post to now include images that show corrected data for the elevation altitude coverage; it was indeed that I had taken the tabled data as verbaitim, unaware that it represented a +/- value. Apologies to all for any confusion this may have caused and thanks again to Frostie for his help in identifying the inaccuracy.

But has already been stated an AIM-54A was able to hit a QF-86 drone after the target had pulled a 6g evasion manoeuvre. If an evidential test data of a cruise missile intercept can be believed, why not the fighter sized maneuvering target? Or do you wish to appear to be subjectively selective regards the evidence you use on which to base your opinion? "Seemingly". Therein lies the crux. With all due respect you seem to have worked your way into quite a pique based on a bare minimum of facts, a large amount of supposition, unreliable anecdotal data and very little hard evidence. Until you have picked apart HBs or EDs coding for these missiles, you really are not in much position to judge. And even then, I can almost guarantee that HB know and understand more about the differences between the two variants than you ever will: http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf?...dLLUtYjZ-2pM2U

Ideal base for the upcoming DCS: Mosquito FB.VI. From http://www.discovergravesham.co.uk/b...1932-1958.html : Just saying.... ;)

It's in the patch notes... : I can confirm that - for the Ju-88s at least - the bomber gunners now fire in bursts rather than non-stop hosing and whilst still a threat are not quite so remorseless in their destruction of attacking enemy fighters.

Read the article... short version, DeHavilland figured out how to convert their two-pitch airscrews to constant speed via a kit. So all the DeHavilland aircerews you see in pictures of Spitties (in frontline squadrons) from the Battle are CS units.

Yes. It allows those users whom have not purchased the asset pack a limited number of assets with which they can build basic ww2 missions, or allow server hosts to run ww2 missions with only those units and increase the accessibility of the mission to a wider audience.

Only if appearing to be an over entitled, inconsiderate spoilt brat to others means anything to you.

I'm sure you could do so much better. That's sarcasm, btw, if it wasn't clear.

Strictly speaking for a two-position prop pitch Spit you're looking at pre-Battle of Britain; Fighter Command initiated a crash program to get all De-Havilland two-position airscrews converted to CS (which could be done with field kits) in June of 1940: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/06/battle-of-britain-1940-constant-speed-propellers.html Dunkirk era, certainly would fulfill your desire but by Battle of Britain proper... not so much.

Short answer: Yes. 21,000ft is the full throttle height for the LF.IX; ergo it is the point at which the drag curve and power curve intersect. Go higher and the drag is less but the lack of oxygen prevents the engine from generating +18lb boost, even with the supercharger in full song. Go lower and you'll get the oxygen the engine needs but the drag on the airframe of the increased air density means you won't reach 404mph. Simply put if you fly at a lower power setting (advised as you have only 5 minutes at WEP - that is 3,000 RPM @ +18lb) then you are still at the best height to balance Speed and Power. It theoretically could change (perhaps going higher till the engine is only able to produce the power you desire) but as a starting point it makes sense. Bear in mind that you'll need RPMs to be quite high to maintain thrust at those higher altitudes and this will negatively affect your fuel consumption, but your TAS (and ergo GS) will be higher.

I find that she requires a lot higher nose attitude round base and final and more power during these phases than feels intuitive coming from the -51 or Spitfire. I fly a curving Spitfire style combined base and final to keep the runway in sight and always aim for a tail low if not full 3-point landing and thus far the bounces have been limited to a small skip or two and eminently controllable. I haven't yet tried wheeler landing and suspect it will require a lot of speed.

Tom Weiss did one, find it here: https://www.lockonfiles.com/files/file/3100-dcs-tf-51p-51d-man-owar/

1.9 - silly q maybe, but could it be your monitor brightness setting as opposed to gamma?

Not an issue from my perspective.

Hey Frostie, Thanks for the heads-up; I wish I could say I was talented enough to do that mathematics myself, however, I cheated! I got the figures from here: https://flyandwire.com/2019/05/18/f-14-rio-awg-9-antenna-elevation-study-part-ii/ However I will review and see if they require amendment.