stuart666

Ive not played it for several patches, so I dont know if anything has changed. dont know if they have done anything to it, but for me, the ground handling problem with the mosquito is down to the tailwheel being modelled ecentric from the centre. You can clearly see this the way it bobs up and down on solid runways and taxiways. You dont see that doing that in videos of the real thing. As far as landings, it needed adjusting, because you could land it like a carrier fighter. For the most part, I support what they have tried to do. I think if they just fix the damn tailwheel so its not eccentric, it will be fine.

Yes, taking off used to be impossible for me as well. Since the tips ive read elsewhere on this board, it really is rather easy, as long as you pay attention. Running the engines up, and use brakes till you get effective rudder input is the key I think. I cant say my takeoffs are always beautiful, but I dont crash anymore.

He would be too silky smooth and laid back. 'You know, why dont you turn about here, whilst I go crack open the pyms.'

I want an AI version of Terry Thomas.

'Should you fly so close to the ground? Im not a flipping miner you know!' and 'We keep a welcome in the hillside. Or we will do, if you dont fly into it boyo!' Ah, the possiblities are endless. At least we dont have to worry about his critique for middair refueling or catching the right wire.

Yeah, I remember us discussing it before. Arguably with a map like Normandy now is, it really warrants inclusion. Even the FB MkVI as used by 140 group were fitted with it. One account describes them using it to find the French Coastline on Ramrod 564 (Operation Jericho). Even if its stimulated via an AI Navigator, arguably it warrants inclusion in the Mosquito at some point.

Yes, we could really do with a Lucero system to do beam approach properly. https://www.rafblakehillfarm.co.uk/babs-beam-approach-beacon-system Unfortunately, it would seem that only aircraft equippd with H2S (which in the Mosquito we obviously dont) can use it. Maybe if the Lancaster ever becomes payware... https://www.qsl.net/pe1ngz/airforce/airforce-raf/raf-h2s.html As far as a drift meter, yes, thats useful. Personally Im more interested in the AI crewman and how it works. Its it going to be something like petrovich, very limited. Or are we to be blessed with an Anglicised Jasper? (Jasper Algenon-Smythe?) There has been remarkably little information on what we are going to get that ive seen. Incidentally, Wistramo Moore did a series of videos on WW2 bombsights and equipment that he had restored, whcih are all worth a look. This is the one on the drift sight, where he demonstrates its functionality. Im not sure if this is identical to what we are getting in the mosquito, but at least it gives some idea how it can be used.

Sure, the tread pattern is postwar, but the shape, to my eyes at least, was broadly the same.

That looks amazing. Perhaps its just the way the clip was procured, but maybe the tire should be just a little fatter? I cant put my finger on it, but I think its slightly narrower in real life. If the clip isnt distorting it of course.

Ive landed it without getting a bounce. I grant you it isnt particularly typical that I grease the runway that way... The only way I found you could do it was use a little throttle to ease rate of decent as you cross threshold, which is a distinctly jet thing to do. I do think however, and this is gut instinct than any real scientific approach, some maps show worse effects than others. Ive not tried Syria, but its my gut instinct Normandy is bad for this. Falklands however seems to be good. As for the tailwheel, I was thinking about this the other day. its almost as if the modelling of it (not the 3d model) was eccentric and off centre. So that as you move its the proverbial square wheel. So I think there are a few issues perhaps all being conflated together. Tail wheel easily damaged. Whcih has always been there, but some of the other elements are making it more apparent. Eccentric tailwheel modelling. Which is decidedly new, and may be contributing in some environments to easy tail wheel damage. Excessive bounce. Which is new, and if you have a bit of a pitch up as you land as well as the bounce, then you are setting yourself up to slam the tailwheel on the tarmac with inevitable collapse. Feel free to add.

Sounds like it might be an issue with the hot start then.

Well the best thing I can do is leave you with Gregs video on the A8, I think this is where he discusses what they could do to improve it. Its also his contention (Im not sure he is right, but he seems to know what he is talking about) that the P47 and P51 are running 150 octane. Which if true, rather explains quite why the A8 is so outclassed. Of course the D9 was probably running 87 octane as well, but with MW50 it probably matters less. The charts he does on some of the other videos where he shows the theoretical power advantages at what altitude for the German aircraft are useful. I cant say he is right, I just think I find it fairly convincing. Check out the one he did on German fuel as well, its very interesting.

Thanks, Ill definately try that out then. Yep, Ill entirely agree with you. And im not even suggesting they take anything out or modify anything. All they have to do is clone the A8 and give it the new throttle range, and maybe a 100 octane version of the P51. Considering all the effort they are going through to make a new theatre with marianas, and a hellcat to fly in it, this should be easy money for them. In fact, if they threw in some new skins, Id happily buy a late production A8 and an early P51D (perhaps without the filler on the tail and in green to make it truly different). Lets put it this way, Id be more inclined to buy those than the Hellcat that, tbh, I struggle to develop interest in.

I think the point im making is to model an earlier Mustang, so that the earlier A8 has something that it is slightly more competitive with, and a later one that, whilst still vastly outclassed, still has a bit more in the tank. If Greg is right (and I would encourage people to listen to his thoughts all the way through) it is not that the A8 wont be outclassed. Its just that modelling a late 1944 Mustang to go up against an early 1944 A8 really isnt particularly fair. Ok, so fair is still going to be outclassed. Well, you cant do anything about the history, but they are modelling two different eras of history. Its not even pretending to be historically correct. Personally Id like to see more 1943 aircraft modelled so we can start modelling ramrods. But using a 150 octane D mustang to model early 1944 scenarios doesnt just look wrong. The results are wholly wrong. Yeah, I really must try overlord. Is there many mosquito slots?

Yeah, but that overlooks that its not about 28000 feet where the Germans are going to be able to compete. If you look at Gregs page, its lower altitude where the FW 190's are going to be competitive. As far as multiplayer, its going to be a very rare day when everyone is plugging each other over 28000 fleet, historical though that may be. Its much lower altitude, under 15000, where the differences are going to be a lot less. And the early mustangs didnt just have a third less guns, but they had real problems with the guns jamming in a turn. Sure, but when did it get 150 fuel? Late 1944. We know the German crates most of the war were on 87 octane, right? So the allied aircraft are always going to have an advantage, even when running 100 octane.But having aircraft ONLY running 150 octane, means you are simulating aircraft in the last months of the war, going up against the Anton which simulates how it was prior to june 1944. Look, im not a luftwhiner, we always had an advantage, and I dont mean for that to end just to increase playablity. But when the Luftwaffe players say the deck is stacked, ahistorically stacked actually, they do seem to have a point as best I can see. There is a case for having early 1944 and late 1944 variants of all the main aircraft. Then the servers can setup authentic engagements where nobody is getting ahistorical advantages.

I get the impression that in June/July 1944, the Americans still largely had B Mustangs, and the Luftwaffe had modified the A8 till have a greater power range on the throttle. The mustang likely still had ascendancy, but it didnt have what it did later with the D model (not least 4 guns compared to 6), and wasnt running 150 octane. I gather the power output of the D they have now is as it would have been in october 1944 till the end of the war, not what it would have had in june. This is all on Gregs planes and automobiles. Im not buying the idea that the early P47 and P51B are offering an unassailable advantage, or clearly they would nt have introduced the later variants. More to the point, we get a B or C mustang, then you can operate them as RAF ones. The RAF only got D models in 1945 IIRC.

Was it like that in reality? Im surprised that, having the extra room, they didnt take that opportunity. But then I suppose if they had, it would make the gyro compass somewhat irrelevant.

You are all warming the engines up first, right? Ive had engine failures, but about 30 seconds after start. If I warm them up Ive yet to have a single engine failure that wasnt caused by enemy fire.

Yeah, landed in a few airports in South Atlantic, broadly seems good. Ironically the surface being fairly good shows up the tailwheel bouncing quite a bit by itself. I think that probably ought to get looked at. One thing I should add, I dont know how you land your mossies, but I find slightly nose up if not a three pointer is good, try and touch down about 100mph as the book says. If you control your rate of descent with the throttle you tend to get a much softer landing.

Funny thing, landed badly and bounced on Goose green, slammed the tail down. And... no broke tailwheel. I also had a noseover, something ive not done on the other airstrips. Weird.... Ok, second time I did bust it. But it seems somewhat harder to make it happen than the grass strips in Normandy. Incidentally, dont try to land a mosquito at goose green. Its way too short...

Just tried landing at Mount pleasant in the falklands. Landing was ok, but I notice during fast taxiing on what is nominally a flat surface that the tail was porpoising a little. I can entirely see why fast taxining can cause damage. On psp plating or grass, yes thats justifiable. But you would think things ought to be a bit different on a concrete taxiway. Its almost like there is some kind of feedback loop on the tailwheel that causes bounce, even when there shouldnt be. Ill try the grass strips here and see if anything else shakes loose.

Just tried the Manston map on Normandy, and I agree its a bit bumpier than the one on Channel. Not much, but enough to perhaps make a difference. If you can land at say 100mph and plant a 3 pointer, you get away with it. But I just did a landing right now (I should have saved the track, sorry) that was just a little harder, and it bounced, slamming the tail down and pegging out the tailwheel. So yes, it does happen. I think tbh this always did happen if you landed a little rought, but it seems harder to land now, so people are noticing it more. Gut instinct, Normandy runways are bumpier and rougher which compounds this problem. Broadly Channel are a bit smoother, so its a bit easier to pull off a decent landing. TBH, I probably spent more time on Normandy, looking to replicate what others have seen. Id personally welcome someone comparing it to channel as I did. All opinions are subjective, so Id appreciate my theory being tested out in comparing the two.

If its of any interest, I upped my interpretation of German air defences and radar sites on the files section. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3333865/ If anyone hasnt yet discovered it, After the Battle publications (if you read a lot of history, you will know who these guys are) did a book on coastal radar sites. Doesnt include the inland ones much, but its still well worth getting. I wouldnt have pinpointed the locations of half of them if it wasnt for this book. https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/German-Coastal-Radar-Stations-Hardback/p/20966

I think the tailwheel always has been a problem. I never had an issue with the tailwheel in the 109 or the Fw190, or the Spitfire. I sometimes broke the mosquito one even before this upgrade. I think its a case of this upgrade has made breaking tailwheel is more likely. Why is that, I think is the bounce making the tail whip, which brings it up enough for the tailwheel to break. But I think its is perhaps only something lots of tracks can prove. I still think a lot of is people trying to taxi or fly it like they used to, and becoming surprised that taxing at 20mph is a bad idea. I think personally this upgrade is a step in the right direction. There is probably some adjustment to be made, but whether that should be the bounce, at least on certain maps, or just making the tailwheel a bit more capable of standing up to abuse, im not quite certain. Perhaps a mix of the two. Well yes, you are right. They all are going to have to be tested presumably. If we could be certain everyone used the same mechanics as the ED maps it would be no problem, but it would seem some of them do appear rougher. Probably ought to try the falklands, that might be interesting.