Krupi

It was gifted to the Project by Cranfield University. It was running but is currently being refurbished for airworthiness. https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/press/news-2017/cranfield-helps-typhoon-project-with-engine Here is good article on Kermit Weeks Sabre's. https://www.google.com/amp/warbirdsnews.com/aviation-museum-news/tempest-revival.html/amp

The problem with the Hawker II and Sea Fury is that it never saw service in WWII.

Not true there is a Sabre running, more than one in fact. In the UK RB396 have a running example which will be used in there Typhoon. Kermit Weeks has two for his Tempest Project which is currently on hold, unfortunately... But he has a ridiculous number of projects on the go. Some Canadians have an example they hope to bring back to working conditions for there JP843 Project. All of these are aiming for airworthiness, so fingers crossed we will get one in DCS in the future.

They didn't say no to the Tempest to be fair, they said no to the Typhoon, I made the assumption that meant no to both given the numerous similarities. I will have to dig it out, I believe it was a statement on a YouTube video by someone who works for DCS

Show me the flying Dora 9? No flying examples exist. As long as there is sufficient evidence and pilots around to talk to clearly they can model an aircraft without one flying.

I was just reading about the Gyro Gunsight with regards to the Spitfire and noticed that on aircraft used the Mossie was listed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_gunsight I don't recall ever seeing a picture of a Gyro Gunsight on a Mossie, were these only fitted on the night fighters? That makes sense to me as unlike the K-14 derivatives produced by the Americans the one used by the RAF apparently didn't have a bombing mode. If anybody could shine a light on this I would appreciate it. P. S. I seem to recall the radar of a Mossie being used in conjunction with a Gyro Gunsight.

I would prefer a Hawker Tempest but as they have said no to the Typhoon I doubt we will see a Tempest, in which case 100% bring on the Griffon. To be honest the Griffon caused a lot of problems as the prop spins in the opposite direction of the Merlin, so arguably it would feel a lot different.

Title states it all, since we have multiple versions of the P-47 it would be nice to see a Spitfire with the Gyro Gunsight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_gunsight Perhaps this could be combined with a Spitfire Mk IXE with the E type wing, larger rudder and the MkII Gyro Gunsight. By all accounts this would be a more fitting Spitfire for Normandy than we currently have.

I was just going to post a topic on this. I would also like to see the Gyro Sight added. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_gunsight

.....Yes.... Clearly I read that and want him to elaborate further. Stating you don't think something is modelled correctly doesn't just end the conversation, that is the beginning

You can be my navigator, how are you at maths?

Yes, the channel map desperately needs some work to make it viable for this mission and many more. It is a fantastic map, it just needs refinement.

@=475FG= Dawger I am intrigued to hear what you think is modelled incorrectly.

Everyone has there preference when it comes to assimilating information, mine is definitely visually. You are kind of correct with your updated image but the original isn't wrong nor particularly concise which isn't helping. They don't show the other forces at play here working against the torque, obviously they aren't going to change the result as the force from the torque is simply too great to overcome however if you depict it like they have ideally all the forces should be shown. What you have depicted, correctly, is the resultant force acting on the C of G once all the forces have been taken into account.

I concur, very much looking forward to the next installment... Now hand it over

What a ridiculous attitude, if you don't have the patience to try and explain then simply don't get involved.

Sorry but what do you mean by pivot points? To put it very simply there is only one pivot point which is the centre of gravity of the object, this point is where all the forces act around.

So that changes depending on the direction the prop turns, right?

Agreed this is begging for an AI Tiffy, the more AI aircraft the better.

Exactly, even aircraft coming off the same line had unique quirks, even more reason to try and keep them as consistent as possible. I agree with your statement regarding 3G, that simply cannot be a hard line just the point that controls started to stiffen up.

It is not gimping the aircraft it is about safety and consistency. Changing the rigging might, potentially be, great for you... not so great for the poor sod who comes after you and has to deal with an aircraft that controls completely differently and could disintegrate at a moments notice because you have ignored the ENGINEERS I am sure that sometimes the answer or approach to an issue was hastily made or too drastic but they have been done to protect the crews and the aircraft.

Correct, the gyroscopic effect of the props will want to push the aircraft in the same direction unlike counter rotating. I have read and this gentleman repeats that the pilots note's tells them to "lead with one engine" to reduce this effect, really the tail plane was too small to cope with the power of the merlins. Watch from ~2:50

"RAF Bombs During the years following the Great War bombs were still thought of as little more than artillery shells dropped from airplanes. In 1937 a new series of bombs was adopted by the RAF which were aerodynamically shaped with tail fins, far more suited to being carried and dropped from aircraft. These came in a variety of ‘sizes’ from 40 lb bombs to 250 and 500 lb bombs. For the first two years of the war Bomber Command relied heavily on 250 lb and 500 lb GP high explosive bombs. Bombs were classified by their CWR (Charge-to-Weight-Ratio) the percentage of explosive compared to the gross weight of the weapon. GP (General Purpose) bombs had a CWR of 30-35% meaning that most of the weight of these bombs consisted of metal casing not explosive. When it was realized that the weight of the bomb casing is a necessary evil, something to be reduced as much as possible this led to the development of new weapons such as the 4,000 HC (‘Block Buster’) which greatly increased the offensive power of RAF’s bombers. MC (Medium Capacity) bombs had a CWR of 40-50% while HC (High Capacity) weapons had a CWR of 75-80%, the latter being essentially explosive packed metal drums. Extensive aerodynamic streamlining was dispensed with since these bombs were carried internally. As already mentioned the 4,000 lb ‘Block Buster’ or ‘Cookie’ was a very effective weapon in this class and after its introduction rapidly became a mainstay of Bomber Command. GP – General Purpose CWR 30-35% MC – Medium-Capacity CWR 40-50%" https://weaponsandwarfare.com/15985-2/ Sounds like it was just a change in relation to the thickness of the bombs casing.

Well I suppose it could be the Oboe system, let me do some digging. Wiki actually has some decent information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oboe_(navigation)

Yep we aren't getting a very early Mossie FB VI in terms of radio equipment, as we have an Aerial Mast behind the cockpit. FB VI's look to have had that removed following the installation of GEE Equipment. The aircraft that attacked Aimens Prison were all GEE Equipped... I started this discussion here... As to how many FB VI's had GEE compared to not, I don't know.... if my source is correct not many. The photos of FB VI's with the mast look to be Coastal Command ones where a GEE was not required. Ultimately I can understand why they would model a none GEE version as it is kind of pointless without creating the whole GEE system which would be a lot of work for a feature used for night time operations deep into German held territory.