Krupi

Great post Fenrir, Just a thought there are two Typhoon projects currently in the works, one in the UK (RB396) & one in Canada (JP843). Perhaps it would be worth contacting them, they appear to get in contact with veterans regularly? Just a thought... Any Canadians on here that could help, a lot of Typhoon pilots were Canadians? JP843 https://www.typhoonlegacy.com/ RB396 https://hawkertyphoon.com/project

I concur entirely agree, I am an aerospace engineer and have seen this happen with my own eyes :huh: However one would have thought these nuanced behaviours would be exactly what is reported to teach the pilots how to fly particular aircraft. Maybe not all of them, perhaps most were just learnt 'on the job'

Awesome, I will have to give that a listen. Thank you

I agree with your three points Fenrir. 1. We know that if they have the appetite ED can reproduce flight test with CFD if required. I hope it is not as fiscal cost of doing it for an aircraft that is niche might mean they won't consider it. 2. From what I have seen there are charts available, whether it is all the charts required I would like to know. 3. Whilst understandable useful I do wonder exactly how important information from pilots are. Obviously these aircraft simply aren't flown like they were in wartime does that mean that nuisance at certain speeds etc will never be experienced by current warbird pilots? Might be doing them a massive injustice there (jealousy obviously). As you have alluded to already we have dwindling number of veterans that we can discuss flight characteristics with, although naively perhaps, I would assume some of this can be taken from reports and autobiographies?

It is the Grim Reapers interview, still watching it myself.

Hi ED, NineLine, Simon, In the "Future of DCS Video" with Simon around the 24:30 mark specific mention is made to the fact that there are no currently no flying Typhoons and therefore it would make it difficult to create, so they opted for the Mossie as data is more readily available... I completely understand that is going to make life harder. However that answer irritated me on two counts... One, two very different aircraft, I personally don't see the Mossie as an aircraft that covers the same role as the Typhoon. Two, there are no flying Fw190 Dora's currently flying and yet we have the D9. So what gives... Is there more to this story, is there well documented information regarding the D9 that simply isn't available for the Typhoon? I find this hard to believe response, but then that was the case with the P-47 and yet they worked around that. I would really like to hear more on this issue.. Will we never get a Typhoon in DCS? Was the P-47 and the D9 completed just because they were in the kickstarter regardless of the hard work required to obtain the information to create them? I just want to understand the reasoning. Regards, Krupi

Yep, it is a bit irritating however hopefully it has served it's purpose and they are discussing if it is worth running a survey. Please could a mod lock this thread. Thank you

That only covers further modules, I would like to see more than that in this survey... I. E. Damage Model, AI Aircraft, bomb load outs, delay fuse...

Sure I appreciate that. Thanks NineLine

Would it be possible to have a survey for DCS WWII like is currently available for the F16?

The Corsair is being developed by Magnitude 3 so it has no bearing on either the Mossie or the ME262 development since they are both by DCS.

We have a Mossie and a ME262 on the way as well the corsair. Since Nick Grey is a BOB fan I think we can expect the Spit MK1 & ME109E in the future however nothing has been announced, they are busy with completely reworking the damage modelling at the moment as well, so the current A/C are being updated inline with that as well. Fingers still crossed for a Typhoon &/or Tempest.

+1

Ti's but a scratch!

F14, F15, F16 & F18.. What is common across these aircraft a 20mm. America seems to think a 20mm is sufficient. No one here thinks that the 30mm is going to be anything other than deadly... Just not necessarily all the time.

I have come across a few where they have been hit mid wing or on the tail and survived. I think to be able to land an aircraft with a large calibre flak hit anywhere close to Central would be game over.

What about all the images of aircraft surviving flak damage which could have been a much larger calibre shell. I am intrigued to see how DCS implements it.

I agree, I just really dislike it when I see someone mention how it should take X number of shells to bring a fighter down. I would expect that regardless of the new damage model you still could find yourself having to hit an aircraft multiple times before you hit it in the sweet spot... though the "sweet spot" 30mm is going to be significantly larger than other calibre :smilewink:

I have to ask, how do you know if it's not accurate? It entirely depends on where the hits land as to the extent of the damage. I get the impression people are expecting an I win button, to be fair I expect it to be most of the time but you still have to hit the right area.

:music_whistling:

It is entirely relevant, as someone just mentioned having to hit an aircraft multiple time to get a kill with the 30mm which is nonsense. Please read the comments first before replying next time.

Not if you just read the previous comment that I was replying too...

I think people tend to forget this was meant to be used operationally against bombers it is not easy to use in a dogfight

If they simply cannot get the amount of data required to recreate a realistic Typhoon then I hope they move on to the Tempest. Whilst there is no flying example of that either the Hawker Sea Fury is a lightweight Tempest and they are flying, perhaps they could use data from the Sea Fury?

Please could you provide a link to the interview in which this is stated. I know having a working example would obviously be ideal however from all accounts they rely heavily on manufacture data, they had an issue with the P-47 which data looks to have been almost entirely eradicated and with fluid dynamic software they have managed to recreate the P-47 so what is to say that they don't have access to all the data required. Also factor in that no WW2 aircraft flying today is taken anywhere near the max performance that they would have been during the war, so in reality the test data from the manufacture is far far more important. This was the reason for the huge delays in releasing the P-47, originally it was due for release before even the Spitfire.