Merlin-27
-
Posts
1213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Merlin-27
-
-
I'm not trying to recreate BOB. Wrong plane set. Did the Germans attack England during the Normandy invasion, or did they just try to defend Europe?
From what I know there were hardly enough resources in the area to put planes over Normandy at that point (depending on what date we decide this is... it's at least D-Day +29) I'd guess flying to England was pretty much a suicide mission.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yes I am getting excellent results, it has come a long way since early development, good to see the hard work the ED team has done come to realisation
Second that. For an Alpha the performance seems pretty great.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Some dogfighting action against the AI, courtesy of Nirvi:
I never noticed that distinct line where the oil splatter texture on the canopy stops. Has that always been the case or is that effect new for the mustang? Just curious. I'm sure it will be refined at some point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can confirm they are collidable in Normandy and provide a very dramatic result. Strafing just became a bit more challenging as you not only have to avoid terra firma!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Sith,
There seems to be a limitation on the ALGs with 100+ parking spots. The drop-down only goes up to 99, at least from my experience so far. Where would you like us to post stuff like this, if this is not the proper thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Can confirm there is a static German steam locomotive that blows up nicely.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Had to do it... for scientific purposes of course.
-
3
-
-
Very impressed. The hard work and dedication to the cause is obvious everywhere you look. Thank you for what looks to be a fantastic playground for many years to come!
-
2
-
-
Sweet Jeebus.... looks great. Of course I'm working a 12 hour day today. 2.5 hours and counting every second. :devil_2:
-
AFAIK that only happened with the series C engine in both the -M and -N versions.
I read that P&W stress tested the R-2800 up to 150 in./ 3800 horsepower on a "B" (of course using ADI but I'm pretty sure they weren't using 150 octane) and ran that same engine for 100 hours @ 3000 hp.
Those engines, when handled properly were quite beastly.
-
CT,
Always a pleasure to fly with you. SnowTiger is right on the money with his response. We appreciate everyone who joined us on the DoW server and the years of participation by our awesome WWII community within DCS. I personally reached a point where I had to make a decision about continued hosting of the server. Ultimately it made more sense to bring it down for the moment, re-evaluate some things and see what happens with the sim as we near the release of Normandy. I have no doubt DoW will have a server back up for you to enjoy again no matter who ends up hosting it and you will always be welcome. We do have members still flying on the other WWII servers that remain and we hope to rally everyone together for all of the exciting things on the horizon.
Cheers!
-
I purchased mine as a pdf download. The full size is 238M (490 pages) I can try to post some screenshots of that section.
-
Sorry for the bad link...
You may also want to have a look at this: rockets, 5 inch (hvar) - MOTIS Ordnance Category
It notes the different types of HVAR's; there were a number or different types: HVAR HE (Mk 6 war head with Mk 149 Mod 0 or 1 nose fuze and Mk 164 base fuze), HVAR AT (Mk 25 Mod 1 war head wtih Mk 149 Mod 0 nose fuze only), HVAR Practice, and HVAR Dummy.
My understanding is that what we have if the HVAR HE, which has BOTH the nose and base fuse, which can be set to 'instant' or 'delayed' (0.020 sec. delay).
But regardless, with regards to landing/crash landing with rockets attached, they should not detonate, because they only arm after launch. From my understanding, only a relatively minor force is necessary to remove them from their mounting (eg during firing), which appears to be illustrated by the F6F Hellcat in the video I posted losing at least 2 HVAR's from it's right wing after being caught on an arrestor line at 1:14.
The same Hellcat can apparently be seen from another angle with a bit more lead time at 1:20, where you can see even better how it loses the two right rockets (the only two it was carrying) upon getting caught by the arrestor line.
No problem about the link. I'm familiar with most of the pages you have referenced.
There are some difference between the launchers used for HVARS. But each one has shear pins in place that will fail if an impact is strong enough. They are there to allow the rocket to release if the latch mechanism fails during launch.
You should check out that Navy Ordinanceman's Guide if you haven't yet. It has much more information than the summaries you have posted.
Also, I read somewhere that the delay was to allow for penetration of the target before detonation, and somewhere I read about the HVAR being able to penetrate a whole lot of concrete.I've never used the delay, but I remember playing an MP mission in which we had to attack an armored column with mostly APC's but also 1 or 2 T-72, which were not affected by HVAR's. I'm now wondering if hitting a T-72 with the HVAR set on delay might penetrate
Looks like I've got some test missions to set up :huh:
Yes, a number of HVAR head configurations were possible and I'd agree that is most likely the HE Rocket Head Mk 6 that we have in the sim.
The best HVAR to use on the T-72 would be the ATAR...which was developed for the Korean war. A precursor of the HEAT round. I don't think we have that option though.
-
That is incredible. Almost worthy of train simulator status?!?
...if only we had an aircraft with 8 fifty cals to perforate it....
-
mmmm k, you made me work for this one.
No, it arms per my description above. Read chapter 8, section 3 of the linked pamphlet for the full description.
I will respectfully disagree.
I'd read the "pamphlet" but it's a non-functioning hyperlink.
From what I can see you are assuming all HVAR rockets used a base fuze, which would be absolutely incorrect. My description is specifically of a Nose Fuze Mk 149 Mod 0 as I indicated in my post. Both types can be present on a single HVAR 5" rocket. The arming and detonation process is quite complex and is fully described in detail within the document I referenced. Either way, I think we agree that the rocket's detonator is armed in-flight and not by any selector switch. Even if the arming wire is removed and the nose cap falls away the impeller will not spin until the forces of the rockets typical flight engage multiple components within the fuze.
Now you made ME work :D
-
http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants/p51d
This site says that with D25 attachments for rockets were added. I also watched a documentary where pilot said that they would go and attack airfields with rockets during the last day of the war. So seems that they could have been used in the pacific, but I have yet to see any data on use in Europe :book:
25th May 1945 was day when 7th AF Mustans, 78th FS, used first time HVAR during mission against airfields in the Tokyo area.5th AF Mustangs used them too.
IMHO Mustangs in ETO did not use them.
Roger. Thanks guys... just have always wondered about it and never found much. I know the HVAR was introduced around the same time as the Normandy invasion but I'm only familiar with it's use on the P-47.
-
Yup, I am aware of them for sure.
That was a big concern to me as he stated he only saved one document, who knows what was lost and destroyed, my hopes it was mostly business type documents and the research type stuff is elsewhere. Now that the Spit is mostly racing towards the door, I am focussing my attention back on the P-47. Might call for a road trip :)
Wow that story is heartbreaking. Seems quite likely that if they were attempting to quickly liquidate the Republic footprint and avoid any complications, much of the technical data is gone. I think it's going to take more than a road trip. Time machine?
This would suffice...
-
IIRC when setting the weapons selector switch from Safe to Rocket it arms all the rockets and opens the circuits to the igniters, with the rocket control dial and thumb button interposing.
Not being able to arm and disarm them from the cockpit would be extremely dangerous; we would probably have dozens of YT videos of P-51's exploding on the ground from premature rocket detonation :doh:
If that was the case then why would you also have to arm the bombs with a second set of switches as they are on that same 4-way selector that you are referring to? I tried to do some searching on the topic and couldn't find anything referring to the act of arming an HVAR. I could be wrong...but I'd like to see something definitive.
While we are on the subject... anyone have any documents showing HVARs on a P-51 outside of Korea? Just another curiosity.
EDIT:
Found some good info. There is some great info included in the Navy Ordinanceman's Manual 1959 (NAVAER 00-80T-65) Section 5-68
I believe the most likely fuze on the HVAR we would see would be the Nose Fuze Mk 149 Mod 0. The rocket arms and is detonated by the forces imparted on the fuze mechanism. As it travels over 900mph those forces are substantial and an accidental det would be unlikely with a properly functioning fuze from what I've read. That being said, I wouldn't be the guy volunteering to test that theory.
-
I am optimistic that its out there, just gonna take a little more leg work to get it.
Have all the community resources been tapped? We can be very resourceful, despite our needy outward appearance.
I think I'm more excited about a faithfully simulated R-2800 than anything else. Of course we can move on to the hellcat if the engine work is complete :music_whistling:
-
To me the main problem with the server is the 3rd person camera. It allows to check 6 way too easily and blind spots are non issue. I also disliked the involvement of AI fighter planes.I tentatively second this. Personally I never use the F# views once I'm in the air, only to see where I've spawned in on the airfield.
I'm not overly concerned about people abusing it during combat-- if anything I think they would be doing themselves a disservice by trying to use it for spotting.
But if there's a perception that it's unfair, I can understand how that might keep people away from the server. Worth considering removing the external views for that reason alone. I could certainly live without them just fine.
Hey guys,
Thanks for the input. Like d0o0m said, the external views were there only for the benefit of mission design and squad pics/videos. Through the history of DoW they've been enabled and disabled many times and been the center of many discussions. Personally I dislike anything, within reason, that is beyond what the typical WWII pilot was capable of (of course with a few exceptions) and I'd be all for removing external views of any kind. (it would be nice if just the spectator slot could have access to external views, but I'm sure that too could get abused)
We've been awaiting a stable 2.0 and hopefully Normandy before pouring too much effort into further tweaking. Most of those missions you see on our server have a LOT of hours on them and unfortunately with the many updates to DCS, a bunch are not able to run for any length of time. Please bear with us, once we have a somewhat stable platform to work with and some proper tools you are sure to see more quality missions from DoW.
My free time has been very limited as of late & I have struggled with the question of just letting the server run and checking on it whenever I can or shutting it down temporarily until we have more resources to devote to it. Since I do see people participating while it is up and running I will try to stay the course and have faith that this winter will prove to be a very exciting season for DoW & DCS WWII.
Maybe some of the mission parameters could be reintroduced over the new map.Might be an idea, if there's time (**ducks flying tomatoes**), to compare some of the mizs to real world missions following D-Day. Too bad the P-47 won't be there.
Sounds like a good idea, HH. Be sure to remind us as it gets closer AND we are always open to missions you guys design and would like to see hosted.
-
Pilots themselves did not decide on whether they would land on the deck or ditch i the sea; the Deck Officer would decide that.
The DO had to weigh the dangers of allowing a damaged A/C to attempt to land, vs dangers to the pilot to ditch, also considering how long it would take to clear the deck for landings again, once a damaged A/C "crash" landed on it.
The Hellcat which ditched in the sea, from the film it's not possible to tell if the film was taking from an aircraft carrier or from another ship. It may have simply been an A/C which ran out of fuel and ditched near the ship from which the film was made, so that the pilot could be rescued quickly.
Hypothetically, rockets lost on landing should not necessarily be in danger of exploding, because they should not be armed, but I'm sure I'd not want to be part of the crew to have to recover them :cry:
Are you positive about that? I believe the rockets functioned differently than the bombs. As far as I know, with the HVAR, you only switch on the igniter preferences (single or salvo) and if a rocket departs the aircraft I think it has a good chance of exploding.
-
ouch. I guess that's the trouble with high fidelity. Hopefully the info exists somewhere. The absence of this bird would crush many dreams.
-
Yes, option to have 67'hg boost should still be there, if anyone wants to make a mission with 9th AAF FG's.
We have to remember that Pacific theater is coming up from Leatherneck who are developing F4U-1D and that will be a perfect place for the 67'hg Mustang too.
BTW, 72'hg with lower grade fuel 100oct would be deadly to the engine, but with 150oct 44-1fuel the overheating will not be as big of a problem as Kurfurst makes it out to be.
BTW, Merlin, you are flying without WEP anyway, so it won't affect you too much :)
Good to know you have memorized my flying preferences, Solty :smilewink: I'm a stubborn guy and set in my ways, using WEP every mission + the use of rear radar break the immersion for me. I know, probably sounds stupid to most but that's beauty of being able to fly "your way" right?
And yes... hopefully you wont have to watch to make sure the ground crew fills your tanks with the correct fuel.
-
I do not see either, as long as the thermal load increase from 72" and other side effects are modelled either. Preferably as a fuel switch, because I am not sure all P-51D module buyers, for example those just like to try the plane offline would suddenly want to deal with all the side effects because a handful of highly vocal posters do not feel that they are competitive enough online.
While we are at it, I do not see any reason why the 109K-4 shouldn't get a realistic "boost" to 1,98 ata with the high octane fuel either.
I'd hope the option of using the "original" DCS P-51D would still be there after the introduction of the new Mustang. I hadn't even considered the alternative reality before now.
I think you'd be surprised by how big that "handful" of online Mustang pilots is and the number of people posting on the forum is far from representative of the actual population. As far as people wanting to casually fly the P-51, I doubt they'd even notice the MP increase.
Normandy Map Discussion
in DCS: Normandy 1944
Posted
Honestly, it's whatever you want it to be.
I'm sure you will see all kinds of scenarios people create... and if it's lacking, just make your own. The ME is quite good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk