DD_Fenrir

Or not: http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/f14-detail-ladder-02l.jpg

For what it's worth, I agree regarding this particular part of the Mustangs flight envelope. It is a well documented behaviour and if it can be corrected in DCS, it should be. But to use this one deficiency in one aircraft module, assume it applies to all, and then damn the entire range of WW2 modules on the back of it is a stretch. Even if you do have hours in a P-51, there are others here who have also, and say for that - for the most part - the DCS P-51 is pretty close, some niggles aside. And do you also have the relevant hours in Spitfire IXs, MosquitoFB.VI, P-47D, Fw 190A-8s, D-9s AND Bf 109Ks to make such a wide ranging disparate remark? Pardon my skeptism, but I doubt it, especially as there are zero flyable versions of the latter two, and whilst the warbird community is tight, getting cleared on type for the remainder of the above would be noteworthy, let alone actually getting access to them all. Given this is a publically accessible commercial simulator software running on a home PC there will always have be some concessions to inaccuracy, mitigated as far as possible, but always there.

Then we are flying very different games. You might want to check the module assists under the specials tabs in your setup menu and ensure you have auto-rudder and take-off assistance turned off because torque, gyroscopic and p-factor is VERY much modelled and makes the handling of the WW2 aircraft much different from the jets.

Correct. Standard loadout for Fighter Command (and later 2nd TAF) Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tempests for the Hisapno was a 50-50 mixture of HE/I and SAP/I. No tracer. See here:

Well El-Alamein is on the west side of the map... just! This would be the extent for large scale WW2 operations, however the WW2 asset pack is very limited in what it could usefully supply in terms of chronologically prototypical units to flesh out such a scenario... much earlier versions of Shermans, Panzers et al would be necessary to realistically recreate that battle, let alone the aircraft models; you'd need Spitfire Mk.Vs, Hurricane Mk.II/IV, Kittywhawk Mk.IIs, Bf 109F-2/4 and Fw 190A-3 at a minimum, for realistic player aircraft. The Ju 88A works however, but the A-20G Boston is a later variant and not appropriate. Israel did not exist as a nation, it was still Mandatory Palestine. Jordan saw no fighting in it's territory, likewise Saudi Arabia. There were some limited actions against an Axis sponsored coup in Iraq in 1941 but this is outside the scope of the Sinai map.

Close in? PAL is the superior choice at 15nm and under.

Then may I suggest you work on your tone. Perhaps instead of "So just stories?", you can type "Awesome. Thanks for the insight. Anyone know of any datapoints that can corroborate these anecdotes?" Comes across much less... prickly.

Night Flyer By Lewis Brandon Publisher ‏ : ‎ Goodall Publications Ltd; 2nd edition (1 July 1999) Language ‏ : ‎ English Paperback ‏ : ‎ 200 pages ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0907579779 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0907579779 Fascinating insight into Night fighter ops in Beaufighters and Mosquitos.

The Men Who Flew the Mosquito By Martin W Bowman Publisher ‏ : ‎ Leo Cooper Ltd; First Edition (22 July 2003) Language ‏ : ‎ English Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 256 pages ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1844150135 ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1844150137 This a good overview of the various missions undertaken by Mossies of all marques.

Agreed. Same Tom Neil. His time frame refence regards flying 8 gun Spitfires is during the period prior to the Battle of Britain, which corresponds to the Mk.I/II variants. Later his squadron, 249, took their Hurricanes to Malta and flew some fairly desperate actions against the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe in 1941. This is covered in his book "Onward to Malta". He came home to the UK in 1942 and after a rest period took over 41 squadron flying Spitfire Mk.Vs and then Mk.XIIs, both cannon armed. If you can get the Spitfire book, I can recommend it. Cuts through some of the rose tinted propaganda mystique that comes with the Spit and is a more considered evaluation of it as a flying machine with an objective view of it's quirks and foibles.

Sheesh...

That was not my point. You asked "So where does the 2.34/2.38 clean spec come from?". Did you read the point about early F-14As having 6000lb more thrust? That later F-14As were de-rated? That it's very likely the 2.34 Mach figure comes from early testing, and it's likely that comes with the benefit of that extra thrust? And that the B, whilst having GE F110s with greater static thrust, was not as quick as the A when high and fast as the general understanding is that the TF30s benefitted from Ram Air effect better.

To continue USAAF: 1944 - 1945 Each Bomber Task force was made up of a varying number of Divisions comprising 1-5 Combat Wings, each having 3 Groups and each group containing 4 squadrons (9-12 bombers). A full up effort could then consist of 2,880 bombers. Generally however these were rarely all employed in one formation on a single target, there would generally be several task forces, each going to separate targets, with 576-1,440 bombers in each. However, even these Task Forces did not fly in one massive formation; the bomber divisions (each of about ~600 aircraft) tended to to congregate in loose trail formations of Wings. As you can imagine this made for very long streams of bomber formations. The only way to cover these was for the VIII Fighter Command Groups (each of three squadrons, totalling 36-48 aircraft) to be assigned to particular Wings or Divisions, in that case you are escorting a particular section of the bomber stream. The Fighter Group Commander would then array each of his 3 squadrons around his allotted section of the bomber stream as he saw fit. Even then because of the long distances involved a relay system was formed where, depending on your assignment, you might only be providing close escort for say an hour; after that a new Fighter Group relieves your section and you, as a Group CO, now have carte blanche to use the remaining fuel and or ammo in the aircraft of your Group on any target of opportunity in the air on the ground as you see fit. You might have a pre-briefed plan that lets the squadrons separate and fan out to go free-hunting. You may have pre-assigned areas to patrol as a group or each squadron may have reserved areas to go find stuff to destroy. Or you may be assigned to strafe a particular airfield near your escort route. But I digress. If you are replicating an escorted B-17 raid in DCS the minimum numbers to look authentic would be a 3 squadron Group of P-51s/P-47s; by mid 1944 these Groups had so many planes and plots they could become two understrength groups (each squadron posting two formations, an A Formation and a B Formation, each of 8-12 aircraft rather than a single formation of 16 aircraft), so posting 36 escorts for each leg is authentic. As for the amount of B-17s visible in the airspace, well.... I would say the minimum would be a 36 bomber Group; 2 or 3 would look better but there would obviously be performance ramifications for that number. See page 108 in the linked document: Print 467715- .TIF (333 pages) (ibiblio.org)

From memory so this might be a little rusty... RAF: 1941-1942 To cover a bomber force of anywhere from 3-18 bombers Close Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - 1,000-3,000 ft above Bombers Formation Escort Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - 1,000-3,000 ft above Close Cover Wing High Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - 1,000-3,000 ft above Escort Cover Wing Top Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - 1,000-3,000 ft above High Cover Wing Target Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - flying direct to target timed to bombers ETA to provide reinforcements in case some of the other escorts were stripped away by enemy action Withdrawal Cover Wing - 2-3 Squadrons, 24-36 aircraft - flying direct to target to pick up bomber formation on egress from target to provide reinforcements in case some of the other escorts were stripped away by enemy action As can be seen this is a massive undertaking with a big show requiring up to 216 fighters, and given an airfield generally supported a whole individual wing, on a max effort at least 6 separate airfields were involved; this meant that nearly all the bases in Kent, Surrey and East Sussex would be required to sortie their Fighter Wings for a given mission. 1943-1945 With the Luftwaffe activity and opposition in France gradually becoming less fierce and the realisation in Fighter Command that these 'Circuses' were unwieldly, inefficient and unproductive, the Escort generally reduced to a single Wing of 2-3 squadrons, 24-36 aircraft, flying direct Bomber Escort in a more fluid arrangement that kind of congregated the Close Escort and High Cover elements, each of the Wing's squadrons being directed to cover different parts of the formation or altitude brackets at the Wing leaders behest. However there would still have been other Wings and squadrons tasked with Fighter Sweeps in the airspace surrounding to try and clear, distract or break up any German formations attempting to intercept the main raid.

From the Cockpit: Spitfire Neil, Tom Published by Allan, 1990 ISBN 10: 0711019185ISBN 13: 9780711019188

The augmented shaking is to compensate for the very prounounced lack of tactile feedback that real pilots get from the jet trembling and shaking, something that unless you have a Buttkicker or JetSeat equivalent, you don't get. There's an argument to be had that it becomes more unrealistic without these augmentations; Heatblur have done similar with sound cues, having the burner lighting as an audible cue because there is no way to replicate the apparent kick in the pants the real thing gives you Plastic spring tensioned joysticks and office chairs in front of a 2D screen are unrealistic - are the elitists here going to demand we all have to have VR, full simpits, seat shakers and someone to sit on our chest to replicate the g loading? What about a guy with a kosh to knock us out if we G-LOC? At some point you have to accept compromise in order to SIMULATE. Ultimately it's an option. A choice. You have that now. You want to stroke your ego and tell yourself how great you are by flying in realistic mode without tactile aids, fine, go for it, but I don't think that is realistic as you are artificially denuding yourself of feedback that informs real pilots. It certainly doesn't give anybody the right to be derogotory or sneering towards those who may choose to fly with that setting off.

<Ahem>: And...

From EDs Newsletter, 30 December 2022: Hopefully this will be appropriately compatible with DCS WW2 maps and modules.

The early variants were also supposed to be day and night fighters; the combined two-into-one exhaust manifolds were as I understand it an attempt to balance the advantage of using the exhaust as thrust but also provide a measure of flame dampening to prevent the pilot being blinded at night. As use of the Spitfire at night curtails through 1942-43 (because it's realised they aren't that effective at night, plus the dedicated radar equipped night-fighter force is starting to get more potent) we see the 6x ejector stack exhausts become more common as these are more effective at harnessing the latent thrust from the ejected exhaust gases.

Is the grass out of scale? Yes. Is it better than having no grass? Yes. If you don’t think so you can turn it off. Would having scale grass impact performance? Yes. There’s a reason it’s a bit over scale. Halve it’s size and you double the polygons you need to cover the same area. Some one who knows more than you about DCS coding as determined that this is the best compromise. Don’t like it? Turn it off. Of all the things to get ones knickers in a knot over, this one seems the most ridiculous.