DefaultFace

Yes I agree that brakes are mostly needed much more for landing. I usually use alternating brake left and right to keep it balanced. Probably some back stick to add downpressure to the tailwheel wouldnt hurt either, wont do much at low speed though.

Hmmmmm. How are you taking off currently? I only need small taps of right brake, and mostly at the start of the takeoff roll, and I takeoff in probably the worst way possible: No tailwheel lock, 1,8 Ata, with flaps etc. Maybe make sure you are taking off with the tailwheel lock on, use only 1,3-1,45 Ata. Push the rudder to full right lock, then add power relatively quickly. Keep the rudder full right until the nose starts to swing right, even then only let off a little bit, and immediately give full right rudder again. Otherwise I have heard of people using techniques where they keep some amount of constant right rudder, but use more or less power to manage the nose swinging back and forth. Sometimes a little left stick helps at high speed to keep the nose straight as well.

I believe I checked them after reading that post but it was not the case (have been trying to figure out the new ammo belts). I’ll look again and double check.

Probably due to increased size of the files. They have lots of data for the new DM in now. Have been asking NL a couple times to see if we can get into them to find out whats in the new ammo belts but have been ignored so far.

Like I mentioned on the other page I've actually been trying to find out details about the transition between G-6 and G-14, what types were flown around Normandy or at least during that time of the invasion... Since the conversation seems to be going here anyway, and in an effort to stop it becoming a spit fan vs 109 fan thing I'll try to summarise what Ive found. Im not a historian or an expert by any means but most of this is cobbled together from original documents various books, or posts on other forums by people who write such books. If anybody knows more Id be happy to hear it. So to start with the G-14 only entered production in July/August 1944. It only really starts showing up in the Flugzeugbestandsmeldungen (unit inventory reports) around the end of July, beginning of August, but to be honest in many cases units started getting them in September, october, sometimes even as late as November. So what was being flown before then? Well on the reports mostly list G-6s. Unfortunately the lists don't always tell the whole story, as the aircraft are often listed under the designation they were originally built with. As many 109s, especially at this stage of the war were rebuilt/refitted from earlier aircraft this can become confusing. Some authors have gone through loss reports, and Unit histories at the time and discovered some aircraft listed as G-6, were actually G-6/AS or other variants. This is essentially where things begin to get confusing. Most G-6/AS were built as conversions from "normal" G-6s (325/326 aircraft). These started to be produced in the first few months of 44, but exactly which units had them and when is difficult to find out, at least for someone like me who is searching for things on the internet. Additionally there are aircraft built as G-6/U2.... From what Ive found these were build between Oct/Nov 43 and August 44. From what Ive found it seems to be that there were between 250-500 of these aircraft in total. To start with these were aircraft fitted with GM-1 boost, but as of April/May 1944 200(250?) conversion kits were ordered to convert these airplanes to MW50 instead. All new production G-6/U2 were supposedly built with MW50 after this period as well. Many of these are listed in Priens book as G-6/U2/AS as well. The big question I still have leftover after all this digging now is: If there were potentially 500 G-6/U2 floating around.... Where were they? I have hardly found any delivered to units, especially not in any number. It makes sense to me that they would be sent to the western front. MW boosted and AS aircraft were really mostly used in the west where they were needed more, rather than sending them to the east where they could make do with older "standard" G-6s. Maybe they are listed as G-6s like the AS machines I mentioned earlier, in which case I don't know how to track them down. The most I found was 1 unit based in france for a few weeks which had 30 or so + maybe 1 or 2 G-5/U2 (pressurised cockpit version, which may have retained GM-1 instead of converting to MW50) and a unit in Germany which had 50 of them in July/August 44. So what does this mean for DCS and Normandy: Well IMO in a perfect world we would get a G-6, a G-6/AS, and an option for a U2 version of both of these. The standard ones are probably what was most numerous in Normandy, yet the U2s were also present in some number (At least 30 G-6/U2 based in Evreux/St.Andre at the beginning of July 44). The U2 variants are also a very good stand in for G-14s if we should get a map where those would be appropriate later on. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world, and Im sure ED has already decided on what variant/s they are making. As for historical accuracy, I think some of us would do well to remember that there are 1 million things that dcs will never simulate, and at best we are trying to get a game which simulates aircraft very well, and is close enough to something so that we can pretend that what we are doing is kind of like what really happened. Like others have said already the luftwaffe was already quite battered by the air fighting over germany in early 44. By the time D-Day rolled around I think there was something like 2 JG.s based anywhere in france, and though more showed up shortly after the invasion, they only stayed for a few weeks. Looking at losses for July/August its not uncommon to see Groups listing their entire complement of aircraft destroyed through enemy action for several months in a row during this period. After that it was Reichsverteidigung in whatever way you can with whatever you have left, and the buildup of fighters in the west again in prep for Bodenplatte. Edit: Made an error with 100 tabs open. The G-6/U2s were based in Beauvis, not Evreux. Its possible the Unit only recieved them on return to Germany on the 30.6 as well.

No U is for Umbau/Umrüstbausatz. Has nothing to do with reconnaissance necessarily.

It was a G-2. And it was not the whole K-4 as such, as it was elevator trim/forces. But thats sort of off topic for here. Also off topic so Ill try not to get too into it, but it starts to show why the topic of "Late" G-6 gets incredibly complicated very quickly...... G-6/U3 has been claimed as anything between Doesnt exist, to G-6 with MW-50 to redesignated G-6/U2. Best info I found suggests that it was some sort of reconnaisance version with MW50. Early MW50 conversions seem to have all been G-6/G-5 U2 aircraft (GM-1). The switch between GM-1 and MW50 was apparently very simple, and was mostly just putting different stuff in the tank.... Therefore supposedly these aircraft retained their U2 designations. Ive been trying to look into this topic a bit the last few days, but as you can see it gets very messy quite quickly. Alot of imprecise and conflicting information out there...

The early designation for G-14s was G-6/MW50. I don't think 109 fans are any more enamored with their aircraft of choice than your average Spitfire or Mustang fan. All of us are here because we like/are very passionate about these aircraft, theres no need to start throwing names back and forth like little children.

Very nice :D

I believe F-1s still fought in the battle of britain. People "hate" the G-6 because it was the pinnacle of bloating weight and drag before any of the later modifications came along to increase engine power and offset this again. But a G-6 without the option for MW50 doesn't really make sense for DCS anyway, since almost all the aircraft we have are late 44 models at least. But ED has a long history of doing things that don't make sense so who knows what will come.

+1 A possible 109 F Would be the only upside to going back to BOB for me which seems to be the plan unfortunately.

In the channel map forum and in a livestream Nick Grey mentioned it in chat.

yes the aircraft.lua files for all the aircraft except the 51 are now compiled in some way which means you can't just open and read them. Ran into this trying to find out what the new MG belts composition.

Sounds awesome, look forward to trying it out! A VR friendly server is sorely needed for DCS WWII. Good luck S!

Well the problem is the same as in all PC flightsims where a computer is aiming the guns. Its a computer not a person, so it knows the perfect lead at all angles/speeds etc etc no matter what you're doing. I found this video pretty interesting as to some insight as to how gunners were trained to defend their aircraft.... Interestingly it specifically advises against trying to shoot at anything not directly attacking you. Now of course thats probably not how it happened IRL all the time, and part of the strength of big formations of bombers is having all those guns, but if you watch the video you can start to understand how difficult it can be to predict lead reliably when the fighter isnt locked into a set geometry like he is when running in on your own aircraft.

Yeah pitch sensitivity reminds me of the spit.... And it seems to be very unstable in both pitch and yaw. Wouldn't surprise me if some of this is still WIP...

Yeah IMO balance of sounds is still off but its an overall dcs issue. I turned down world sounds and left cockpit at max, and still you can hear other aircraft operating nearby 10x louder than your own.

As the title says, trim forces are there but no stick shake/buffeting. Not implemented yet?

The bundle isnt on the store yet, so Im not sure how you can know how much it will be....

Newy mentioned there will be a bundle. Just not up yet.

Don't think he had time to measure.... :P Idk IIRC he said something like he whipped it back or something like that so it couldnt have been too slow.

Actually there are definitely 109 pilots who used the trim in combat. Walter Schuck mentions doing it while in a dogfight with some Hurricanes. But Im not sure how useful it is in DCS. Best practice is to just set it a little tail heavy and not really mess with it in the middle of turns. Works well with an FFB stick.

Lots of people here get very hyperbolic about which airplanes to be afraid of etc etc. Most of it is nonsense and you can safely ignore it. Similar with comments about turning and energy fighters, boom and zoom only etc etc. Alot of those comments are very simplistic, and can be easy to take out of context. Purely performance wise the 109 is very capable in DCS. IMO its one of the most difficult aircraft to get that performance out of though, and handling takes a bit more practice to get used to compared to some of the other airplanes. If you want to fly the 109 well you should pay special attention to flying coordinated and smoothly. Practice turns, climbs etc etc in Free flight and watch the ball to get used to how much rudder you need and how the airplane feels when its coordinated. The higher difficulty AI, even though it "cheats" FM wise, can also be very good to practice flying cleanly against. Really the biggest secret of flying the 109 (and all the planes in dcs) is just the stuff above, use the rudder properly, and dont be ham fisted with the stick. Of course if you want to know more about dogifghting there are plenty of books and youtube channels to look for basics, but alot of it comes down to practice. Its also worth noting that the stick forces in the 109 are much higher than the other airplanes, so playing with the throttle and trying to fight at lower speeds will generally be more advantageous than high speed fighting. Too much or too little energy can both be bad. This book is supposed to be pretty good for basics: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/lento_ohjeet/inpursuit/inpursuit.pdf As well as Requiems youtube channel, which is mostly with clips from the other sim, but it all applies more or less the same. Good luck, S!

:D:D:D Sounds great. In the meantime Battle of Britain II 1946 sounds not too terrible.