PL_Harpoon

I almost 100% agree with all of this, except First, I'd also add delayed fuses for allied bombs. Not only it would be useful right now but it also might be crucial once the Mosquito arrives. Secondly, Despite the neglect I'm grateful for anything they do for WW2, even if it's just the gun sounds. It's not like the sound designer can stop improving sounds and fix bugs instead.

TBH, given how long it takes to develop a full fidelity module at the moment I'd be satisfied with an AI versions of G6 or Zero.

Cheers

As promised, the video of my yesterday's tests:

Just did a few tests. The result is no surprise: it's a matter of mass. At 20% fuel I was able to perform a safe autorotation with glide speed of 90km/h by a sharp pull of the collective at the right moment and only a slight flare. At 80% the same technique didn't work. The helicopter would just falls like a rock. After 3 attempts I did a simple test at altitude: I started a regular autorotation but pulled the collective at 300m to see how much altitude it takes to achieve the slowest descent rate and what descent rate you can achieve. As I suspected, the rate of descent went from >15 m/s to 5 m/s and it took about 100m to do so. Still, not enough for a safe landing. Then I performed a safe autorotation with glide speed of 150 km/h and with flare at the end managed a safe landing. I have tracks for all attempts, here are some of them. I'll try to record them to a video tomorrow. I've had enough for today Here's a successful attempt at a 90kph autorotation with 20% fuel, Hind - Autorotation 1 - low speed - low mass.trk here's one of the attempt of doing the same with 80% fuel, Hind - Autorotation 2 - low speed - high mass attempt 3.trk here's the test at 300m Hind - Autorotation 2 - low speed - high mass test.trk ...and here's a successful landing with glide speed of about 150kph and 80% fuel Hind - Autorotation 2 - high speed - high mass.trk

BTW, it is interesting that within the same manual, there is another section referring to autorotations. This time there are no specific speed values to maintain and in fact states that:

That's what bothers me. I too can perform successful autorotations with speed of 170kph. The problems starts when I try to do it according to the instructions from the manual I attached above. Try to do autorotations while maintaining 80-90 kph and you'll see that I mean.

Actually, from my experience in DCS it's quite the opposite. During autorotation the descent rate easily falls below 10m/s. At that speed it's impossible get it to safe values by just collective alone, even if you start pulling at 100% RPM. In my experience it works like this: flaring actually increases rotor rpm, so by a combination of flaring and pulling collective you can maintain rotor rpm for long enough to create just enough lift to cushion your landing. Without flaring rotor rpm drops too quickly and it doesn't generate enough lift. Without enough speed the effect of the flare wears off too quickly (and you slow down too much and leave effective translational lift which makes the whole thing even worse).

That's my thoughts too. Nevertheless it's impossible (at least to me) to follow these instructions without crashing.

I'm not sure it's related to gear as lowering the gear is a part of the process according to the manual:

I've been trying to do autorotation as per this manual and it's simply impossible. In short, the manual states that you should descend at 80-90 km/h, at 50-60 meters AGL pull up to decelerate so that at 10-15m you're at around 50-60 km/h and then pull the collective fully up to cushion the landing. My problem is, I've tried all combinations: from slow flare and slow collective pull to intense flare with sharp collective pull and everything in between and my vertical speed never drops below safe values. The only way I've been able to perform a successful autorotation was when I maintained at least 150 km/h during descent and used the flare to maintain rotor rpm while pulling the collective. That way I can achieve touchdown at around 50 km/h and use cyclic and brakes to stop. There's only 3 possible explanations for this: either I'm doing something wrong, or the manual is inaccurate (provided the manual is authentic this option is quite unlikely since the Mi-35P's and Mi-24P's flight characteristics should be very similar) or there is something wrong with the flight model. I can try to record the track/vid next time I do this but even without it it's easily reproductible.

I stand corrected then.

Even though you're I doubt that incorrect prop lever position would cause engine damage.

Is it a cold start or a hot start? Perhaps your engine is not warmed up?

I'd even hazard a guess that even at the end of the war K4's were more common that Griffon powered Spits. I guess that was offset by allies much greater numerical advantage and the fact that at that time pilot training in Luftwaffe was extremely poor/fast (to keep up with the losses) so that Allied pilots were in general more skilled. Both things are not a factor in DCS (especially multiplayer) So yeah, a it would be great to have G6's instead (or just have both with limited K4 slots on servers) but for now we allied pilots just have to "git gud" and carry on.

Great landing! Especially since you've just bought the plane.

Keep in mind that after the 5 min mark the engine failure is randomized. It can happen instantly but just as well it can take several more minutes. I guess this is to simulate engine wear and such.

I know you mean water, but I've never heard it referred as ADI. What does the acronym actually stand for?

The thing is, single engagement is not enough to get reasonable conclusions. This could've been a lucky shot.

Interesting. Both of those articles seem to suggest that the 13mm bullet of MG131 was actually less effective than the M2's 50.cal. Then there is this post: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-german-13mm-cartridge-mg131-vs-usa-50-cal-cartridge-browning-m2-damage.51419/#post-1484323 Although there are no sources to check so it'd difficult to confirm.

I did some calculations regarding the MG131s. First of all, gun synchronizations shouldn't be an issue. Even at idle the rpm is around 1400 (during flight at normal speed). With the engine's reduction ratio of 0.594:1 the prop rpm would be around 830 rpm. Considering it's a 3-bladed prop, for each resolution there are 3 safe prop positions to fire. That'd give us 2490 correct prop positions per minute, which is way more than MG131s 900 rounds per minute. There might be slight delays in rpm but it's negligible. However... The M2 rate of fire isn't much lower at 800 rpm. So I made this simple calculation in Excel to see how powerful the MG131 round must be for the Bf-109 to have the same damage output as the P-51: Aircraft / weapon rps (rpm/60) guns hits per sec (all guns) damage per bullet dps (single gun) dps (all guns) BF-109 / MG131 15 2 30 2,7 40,5 81 P51 / M2 ,50 13,33 6 80 1 13,3 80 As you can see, the MG131 hit would have to be 2.7 times more effective than .50 cal to have the same effect. Now, in my tests I found out that 2xMG131 are not as effective as 6x .50 but they're pretty close. Also, there is a clear difference in type of damage: MG131 ammo does damage where it hits. .50 ammo has much greater chance of penetrating the airframe and damaging the engine or setting a fuel tank on fire. Even so, to be only slightly less effective the single hit from the MG131 has to be at least twice as powerful as a hit from .50cal and I'm not sure that's correct.

Not true. The convergence for the allied fighters are: 1000ft/330yd for the P-51 and P-47: 900ft/300yd for the Spitfire

TL;DR No, but their machine guns are possibly a bit too powerful (though that's up for debate). Below is the proof. To find out I performed a series of semi-scientific tests. I've set up a mission where I'm shooting at an AI fighter flying straight and level. The test parameters were: I'll be matching each weapon type of each fighter against every fighter. This later turned out to be unnecessary. I'll explain why below. I'll perform 5 tests per match. This is to rule out a lucky shot or unlucky hits. I'll be shooting from behind, at convergence or from a distance of about 1000 feet so that the maximum number of bullets shot would hit the target. The AI plane will be flying straight and level to make sure aiming isn't an issue. The theory was: if the German planes are tougher than Alliance ones they will require more hits from the same weapons. First I tested all aircraft against P-51s 6 .50 cals. Results: a short burst was enough for every aircraft to either be destroyed or damaged enough to force a crash landing. The toughest aircraft were the P-47 and FW-190 A8 (both were in most cases damaged and forced to land). Then I decided to test out how additional 2 .50 cals of P-47 affect the performance. So I did 5 tests agains Fw-190 A8. Results: a short burst was enough to destroy the aircraft every time. Then I tested the Spitfire. Since it has 2 different weapon types I decided to test each one separately. First I started with machineguns. Results: As expected, they're weak. It's difficult to kill with those weapons. This had one benefit though - it made it easy to compare the toughness of each aircraft. The P-47 was the toughest one (each time emptied full mags, didn't even manage to force a landing). Then the Fw-190A8 (1 damaged, 1 destroyed). Then P-51 (mixed results of damaged and survived). Then the Spit, Bf-109 and Fw-190D9 (mixed results of damaged and destroyed). The I-16 was the easiest to kill (engine stopped after a short burst on each test). At this point I was able to determine that the German fighters are not tougher than Allied ones. Still, I decided to continue the tests to see how different weapons compare to each other. So I tested the Hispanos. Results: a very powerful weapon, possibly on the same level as 8x .50 cals (although more difficult to aim). Also an interesting discovery: the aiming point of the Hispanos is just below the center of the reticle. This could result in many misses when fired together with the machineguns. I started with the P-51 (all destroyed) but then decided to try how they fare against the P-47 since it's the toughest aircraft. All 5 tests ended up with the Thunderbolt destroyed after just a few hits. Then, just to be sure I tested it against all German fighters. The results were very consistent - all destroyed after just a few hits. After that I tested the Bf-109's machineguns. Results: I was surprised by how effective they are. Even the P-47 was destroyed every time after a quick burst. 2x MG-131s are almost as powerful as Mustang's 6 M2s. I'm guessing they'd be as effective as 4x .50 cals but there's no way to test this in DCS. Then came the time for the 109's big 30mm. Result: As expected - everything (tested against the P-51 and P-47) torn to shreds, mostly after a single hit. The Thunderbolt managed to survive the first hit a few times but it was still heavily damaged. At last, just to be sure, I tested the Fw-109D9's machineguns and cannons (against the P-47). Results: Machineguns worked just like in the 109, cannons worked just like the Spit's Hispanos. I don't own the Fw-190A8 or the I-16 so couldn't test those. Here is a google drive link to tracks and Tacview files: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17kGX2JBw4O4V4IAU6EhT19yF6nKHiaw-?usp=sharing Cheers!

Here's an interesting question. Do we need as much detail information for the AI planes as well? Not every aircraft in the game needs to be flyable and the addition of many AI planes of the era would at least make the environment more believable and to some degree would solve the problem of not having enough adversaries to fight.

That's exactly my experience as we'll. On the other hand if you can manage to end up in a turn-fight a kill is just a matter of time (and your marksmanship).