Basco1

With all respect old chap,most of these WWII warbirds were all very much hands on,there was no such thing as a hands off stick flying,these were seat of the pants warbirds.....trimming meant that every time you altered pitch,yaw,throttle inputs or prop control inputs you had to re trim this is very hands on....not hands free....this was the game....these aircraft did not act like state of the art computerised jets.

Regarding this modules 'over heavy tail ' making the pitch do what it does.....I find it unbelievable that a leading aircraft manufacturer such as De Havilland would design/create such an aircraft that had such a poor centre of gravity,but I'm no leading aircraft engineer.....far from it,and my understanding was flawed as I was to find out. However it is very difficult to understand why it was so tail heavy,you've only got to look at where the weight is centered on the Mosquito.For a start you've got two....and that's two massive great Merlin 25 engines up front,the undercarriage is also housed in the engine nacelles,you've got the weight of two men in their cockpit up front,you've then got all the armament up front directed in the nose area .....in fact the only part of the aircraft that was partly central was the fuel tanks,located in the,wings,so maybe these counter balanced the aircraft's strange weight distribution,and of course we must'nt forget the aircraft's also made of wood.....it should on paper be very,very light and nose heavy. So why was the Mossie so tail heavy ? it defies understanding,and yet after researching the aircraft's characteristics it truly was this 'tail heavy'. I've been reading about the aircraft from many books to fully understand it's traits and in an excerpt from 'The Miraculous Mosquito' by Stephan Wilkinson,he goes on to say the following,which is quite revealing. The Mosquito was not an easy airplane to fly. As combat aircraft historian Bill Sweetman wrote in his book Mosquito, it was “a slightly nervous thoroughbred which could perform impressive feats in the hands of the courageous and competent…but would occasionally deal out a kick or a bite.” Its power-to-weight ratio and wing loading were both high, and its Vmc—the speed that needs to be maintained to assure rudder effectiveness with one engine feathered and the other running at full power—was, depending on load, an eye-watering 172 mph or more, probably the highest of any WWII twin. The much-maligned B-26 Marauder had a Vmc of about 160 mph. There was a substantial no-man’s-land between lift off and Vmc during which an engine failure was usually fatal. Below Vmc, power had to quickly be retarded on the good engine to keep the airplane from rolling, and this meant a loaded Mosquito could no longer maintain altitude. (As cynics have said, the only reason to have two engines on a piston twin is so the good one can take you to the scene of the accident.) When their mounts were fully gassed up and carrying a 4,000-pound blockbuster, Mosquito pilots learned to ignore normal lift off speed and instead keep the airplane on the runway no matter how long it was and pull up when they were just 200 yards or so from the end. On take off, most multi engine airplanes exhibit little or none of the torque-roll/P-factor/slipstream-effect yaw of a powerful single, but a Mosquito’s engines needed to be handled carefully. The effect on yaw of the long, powerful out thrust engines was substantial. Leading with the left engine and opening the throttles judiciously helped, but Mosquitos didn’t have locking tail wheels to hold a heading during the first part of the takeoff roll. So a pilot had to use differential braking to catch takeoff swings, and in typical Brit fashion, a Mosquito’s pneumatic brakes were actuated by the rudder pedals but modulated by air pressure controlled via a bicycle-brake-like lever on the control column. Not a natural process. RAF Mosquito pilots were typically selected for their airmanship and experience, and they handled their Mosquitos with elite talent. The USAAF tried to operate 40 Mosquitos designated F-8 photo reconnaissance and meteorological aircraft, but they crashed many of them, some on the pilots’ very first Mosquito flights. (Granted, many of the crashes were due to mechanical problems.) The F-8 program was a debacle, and in September 1944 it was canceled. It had been championed by Lt. Col. Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son, a low-time private pilot who had been forbidden to fly military aircraft. He trained as a navigator and loved the Mosquito because it let him fly as a crew member on missions over North Africa and the Mediterranean, which of course his unit’s Spitfires and F-4s—photo recon P-38s—couldn’t. Other Twelfth Air Force pilots weren’t so sanguine, and they wrote that “the Mosquito with low- and medium-altitude engines is useless for our purposes. With the Merlin 61 engine its usability has yet to be proven.” Wright Field tested a Mosquito Mk. VII as part of the PR pro­gram and concluded it was “unstable in ascent at speed-of-best-climb. It was tail-heavy and unstable longitudinally during landing approach, especially with full fuselage tanks and center of gravity located near the aft limit, and rather precarious for inexperienced pilots to land in this condition.” The Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions warned: “This airplane is NOT designed for the same manoeuvres as a single-engine fighter, and care must be taken not to impose heavy stresses by coarse use of elevators in pulling out of dives or in turns at high speed. Intentional spinning is NOT permitted. At high speeds violent use and reversal of the rudder at large angles of yaw are to be avoided….Tail heaviness and reduction of elevator control when the flaps are lowered is VERY MARKED….”

Already answered dear boy.....try investigating the thread here:

+1 Definitely required

Not that this is a major issue,but I thought it would be correct to report.....the inputs for the Gunsight Reticle Intensity Increase/Decrease are back to front...ie the increase input decreases the reticle brightness,whilst the decrease input increases the brightness. Happy Landings Basco1

I totally agree,as I replied in an earlier post....there is a fundamental flaw somewhere,and I too don't believe for one minute this is correct behaviour,as you quite rightly state that it is highly unlikely that a combat aircraft would be allowed a handicap of such nature given the crucial implications that even a split-second can have in high speed warfare. This is so right.....these were life and death crucial moments to a pilot and I too have never ever heard of any momentary loss of time being wasted prior to these cannons firing. So I too will also be regarding this as a bug until a more thorough understanding is put forward to prove otherwise.

Sorry...Yes correct...there is no tailwheel lock,I got that totally wrong.....so there is no requirement to hold the stick back at all.....thanks for the correction razo+r

Wow,that looks fantastic,great report Giskvoorsk.....on the two last pics provided you can really see the improvement

You've got to taxi forward to straighten the tailwheel,but then hold the stick back to keep it locked,if taking off once you've reached about 34 Mph then bring the stick forward slightly before giving it the full beans 3000 RPM required for take off and bringing the stick to the neutral position.

I quite agree...we would do well to understand this properly.....there is a fundamental flaw somewhere.....why are the same cannons that are also present on the Spitfire so different to those present on the Mosquito. If the same cannons did have a momentary lapse of operation then fine....I'm happy with that,if that is the case.....but we then need to see the same momentary lapse of operation applied to the Spitfire,surely. Either way ED more clarification please.

Agreed....I'm not going there either.

Does'nt make any sense to me either....and with all respect this is just your opinion.....you say no curves,no sat,nothing.Like it's meant to be flown....but this is purely your take on it.....how do we know the module's FM is 100% correct ?.....it's a sim,it ain't the real thing,it can only ever be a close representation.To say 'like it's meant to be flown' is some what arrogant,like only your opinion counts. I find FFB totally off putting,certainly not realistic in any shape or form....I'm sure the real aircraft would'nt have shaking forces going through the stick,or not to the extent of PC FFB sticks present anyway,they are precise instruments,for precise control.....not shaking with vibration constantly,this FFB is just crass interpretation of the PC sim world. FFB IMHO takes away the preciseness that I personally want from my stick when flying......however these are only my opinions.

ROFL....,no suffering here.

Agreed...this is why I liked this MOD from the start,it's colour is also more realistic and true to the real gunsight reticle...it has that deep orange colour,not yellow as per the current module's version. The MOD also has the correct vertical bars on it ie not extending into the ring and the horizontal bars that have the correct chiseled edges as you quite rightly have pointed out.....see the top comparison picture.

Here's a few pics of the mod in game.

Thanks Nealius,after reading your tip,I too tried it and it does indeed work .....thanks for your guidance mate,very much appreciated and again,kudos to the original creator Grajo..... With all respect to ED the vanilla version is great don't get me wrong......but this version Rocks.

Would love to see the gunsight reticule get a work over in the way of a MOD like the one the Spitfire enjoys.....it just looks like the real thing. Here is Grajo's super HD reticle mod for the Spitfire......Grajo if your reading this,kudos to you buddy,but can you work your magic on the Mossie please ? The real thing can best studied in the video below the MOD comparison.

This is Reflected's video on engine emergencies,it has everything included,it's very clear and concise.....I hope he won't mind me uploading it here,it's just so informative....thx Greg. All credit goes to Reflected.

It looks like today's update DCS 2.7.6.13133 Open Beta has made some corrections,will checkit out.

No....This is a 'Start Up Tutorial' once the engines are primed by the ground crew there is still a whole load of operations to be completed for start up,this is what we're saying,basically the start up tutorial is left in limbo,ie....it is not completed.

Confirmed....after F6 'Start Priming Engines'and the Crew Chief says "Copy" there is no further response.

It would be very nice to see one of these WW2 Mobile Air Traffic Signal Trailers created please ED.....every WW2 airfield had one.

Yeah I know it's annoying,reading through some of the discussions re bombs/fusing etc ED has mentioned that this side of things is still very much WIP,well in fact it's still pretty much non existent truth be told. Take the delayed fuzing,this is apparently being looked at but that's about as far as they've got.....looking,so using the Mossie in it's intended role as a low flying Fighter Bomber ain't going to happen soon.

Well at least you'll be able to get started,and get some training in,in fact TBH I hardly use the stable version these days.