Talisman_VR

Hi Phil, I find that 2750 rpm is always the best setting for this test. My test today with full 18lbs boost and 2750 rpm gives me a sustained (15 mins +) speed of 531 kph (330 mph) at wave tops (prop almost in the water all the way, lol). Carb Air Intake lever fully back, rads auto and trim, trim, trim. Just leave at full boost and 2750 rpm and let the speed build up gives me 531 kph with no bother at all. I use the in-game speed bar for testing as I presume it is more accurate than me reading the cockpit gauge. I find I don't need a power dive to achieve 531 kph. Even using a power dive the speed bleeds off back to 531 kph as the sustainable speed eventually. The speed bar regularly flicks up to 532 kph, but I take 531 kph as my ultimate measure because that is the most sustainable speed I can make without dropping any lower over a long period of time. P.S. I don't use 3000 rpm for this test at all, as it gives a lower speed than 2750 rpm. In combat, I only use 3000 rpm for a very short period of time (seconds) when needed in a climb in a combat situation (tactical egg for example), and lower rpm back down when nose down or level. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Nice one Snapper, but 600 feet is cheating :P Get down man! Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Phil, I believe the manual says that the Spit rads open at 115 deg + So I assume that the max level speed is achieve within that temp range. I certainly manage my max speed at sea level within that temp range and the rads don't open. Under 115 deg, I think the rads are set at min drag position (Meredith effect), but I could be wrong about that. So, I think the rads are never actually closed shut tight, but closed to the minimum drag position. Perhaps a real expert can confirm this. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Phil, I got 535 kph (332 mph) sustainable when the Spit was first released. However, I have not bothered to keep making progress with it as the Spit is so very much slower than every other aircraft that there is simply no advantage in it. Instead I have concentrated on best combat cruise speed, combat settings and all the various economy settings. By the book, at the extreme end, -4lbs boost and 1800 rpm burns 30 gallons per hour and -2 @ 2000 rpm burns 40 gallons per hour. I have found the economy settings more useful than top speed at sea level settings, LOL. However, I must confess that I have not actually tested the book economy settings against the DCS model. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Javelina1, Thanks for pointing this out. I had not seen it before. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Racoon, I have the feeling that you are already ahead of us all and have everything well in hand :) Thank you and good luck to you and all the team with the WWII project. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I believe that the mainstay of the LW bomber force in 1944 was the JU88. Therefore, may I suggest that a JU88 (1944 specification) would be a welcome addition for DCS WWII. Perhaps an AI model initially, like the B17. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Same issue for me too. I use Win 10 and Edge. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

http://www.rafbeachunits.info/Airmen_on_the_Beach/airmen_on_the_beach.html Some interesting information here regarding RAF Beach Units, including setting up radar and balloon defenses. I must admit I was not aware of this before finding this article. For example this is an interesting extract: "Even more surprising to some might be the fact that the R.A.F. landed on Omaha beach on D-Day. Although the American 9th Air Force was providing tactical air support in the American sector, it was the job of 85 Group, 2nd T.A.F. to provide the radar facilities for directing R.A.F. night fighters in defence of the beach-heads. The first echelon of 21 Base Defence Sector R.A.F. landed with 15082 G.C.I. at around 17:00 near St Laurent, about one mile to the west of Colleville beach." Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hawker Tempest V would be better and more in keeping with the technological time line of the LW opponent aircraft we have at the moment, like the 109K and 109D. The Hawker Tempest V is the aircraft that the Typhoon was supposed to be. The Hawker Tempest V would give us a more 'joined up' aircraft set in terms of the technological time line. With the current opposition being the 190D, 109K and Me 262 that is in the pipe line it would be better to have the Tempest V. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Skip Bombing https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IlcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=land+skip+bombing+during+WWII&source=bl&ots=81_IhQCzAS&sig=caGYN3HMV8CZM9pq41GIAp_2Pzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm79bou-_RAhUDK8AKHWJjCvUQ6AEIWTAN#v=onepage&q=land%20skip%20bombing%20during%20WWII&f=false Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

A reasonable point IMHO regarding lack of bomber modules for a WW2 environment. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Skip bombing was used over land and water. But my question was also about timed fuses. We need to be able to set timed fuses or we get blown up by our own bombs, and/or blow our squad mates up, with low level attacks. Being able to set timed fuses for bombs is important for air attack. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Possibly yes (modify axis in DCS control settings), but you would need to hold them on, which I would not want to do, so I would not recommend the paddle for speed brake use. I use on/off buttons for speed brakes. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I use mine with a Saitek cyborg evo force feedback joystick and CH rudder pedals and it all works together great. I think the new Thrustmaster TWCS throttle is very good indeed. The long throttle travel is great for precision control of aircraft engine power, particularly with WWII piston engine warbirds. Because I use CH rudder pedals I don't need to use the integrated 'paddle' to control the rudder and find that the 'paddle' works great for wheel brakes. Assigning the 'paddle' for wheel brakes is particularly helpful with the Spitfire for landing and taxi. The TWCS throttle has very much helped my aircraft handling and general flying ability. I would much rather use the TWCS throttle over more expensive throttle systems. I highly recommend the TWCS throttle. I use it almost every day for 3, 4 and sometimes 5 hours at a time and think it is good quality and very good value for money. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Any news as to whether timed bomb fuses and skip bomb capability will be available in time for the Normandy map would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if I have missed any updates about this, but to the best of my knowledge we are unable to set bomb fuses and carry out traditional WWII skip bombing. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks Bart. That is good news. :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Bart, Are you able to get 100% fuel yet, or is it still stuck at 83%? Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks Bart. Sound like good news. I have not updated yet, but will keep a look-out. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi SiThSpAwN, About the stall fighting point you have made. I think we can agree that stall fighting is not the way to go with the Spitfire; defiantly not the way to get the best from this aircraft in a dog fight. The engine can be broken with the current 18lbs boost very easily if stall fighting is attempted, so I would not expect people 'in the know' to suddenly start trying to stall fight the Spitfire just because 25lbs boost was available. Sure, novices may wreck the engine trying to stall fight, but they can easily make that mistake right now with the 18lbs boost. As for 150 Octane use, from previous posts and links to references, clearly Air Defense Great Britain (ADGB) used it and so did 2nd TAF. If the ED Team wish to differentiate between mission types to decide whether to provide 150 Octane fuel versions of an aircraft, then I fully respect that is their prerogative. However, I would suggest that ADGB aircraft were not just used to defend against the V1 threat, they were there to defend against conventional aircraft as well. I find it difficult to think that ADGB aircraft airborne with 150 Octane on patrol or scrambled over the English Channel were not allowed to attack conventional enemy aircraft in the sector they were defending. I also find it difficult to think that all the different aircraft types across ADGB that were using 150 Octane were only used in anti diver (V1) operations. Also, we know that ADGB aircraft took part in missions over France during and after D-Day (as well as other missions on the continent). Conclusion: Given that 2nd TAF used 150 Octane covering the period when the DCS 109K and 190-D were active and ADGB used to the same fuel earlier to defend England, which is to be included on the upcoming DCS map, I suggest that it could be considered reasonable to have a 25lbs Spitfire. I had better not post again on this topic or you will be getting fed up with me, but I hope not :) Good luck to the ED Team with the WWII project. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

The difference between the Spitfire and Mustang will have an added dynamic when we get the clip wing Spit. I am very much looking forward to the clip wing version :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Not just around during the Normandy landings, but before and after the landings too! I think it was Nelson who is said to have put a telescope to his blind eye once and said "I see no ships". If folks don't want to see evidence for 25lbs Spit there is always the blind eye trick. That is such a funny thing to do :lol: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thank you for the above informative references. It never ceases to amaze me that some people still want to be 25lbs boost deniers. There is so much proof out there. ADGB Spit IX aircraft started using 150 grade fuel with 25lbs boost in 1944. The following is and extract from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html “Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations.” It is worth noting that the Predannack Wing is quoted as the 'first', not the 'only' or the 'last'. 'First' means that more ADFG Spitfire Mk IX aircraft converted after No 1 and 165 Squadrons. We also have it on record from Mr A. C. Lovesley, (Rolls-Royce 'Chief Experimental Engineer' and later 'Chief Engineer (Aircraft Engines)' then deputy director of engineering and a member of the Aero Engine Division board of directors before he retired in 1964) that, regarding 150 grade fuel, "The first operational use of this fuel was against the flying bombs in the middle of 1944. Subsequently the whole of A.D.G.B. Was put on this fuel. Later it was used by the Second Tactical Air Force during and after the invasion of the Continent." It is worth noting that 2nd TAF was attached to ADGB for the invasion period. “By mid August the V-1 diver threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. They paid their first visit to Germany on 27 August 1944.” http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html It is worth noting that the phrase “more time” indicates that, of course, the ADGB Spit IX squadrons were also already spending time engaged on missions across the Channel, but now they had even more time and resources to focus on sorties over the Continent. Anti diver (V1 flying bomb) squadrons did not spend all their time on anti diver duties. They were rotated on standby and sometimes would fly anti diver for the morning and other operational sorties in the afternoon. There were lots of aircraft and squadrons sharing the anti diver task and they were not all needed at the same time. Though the V-1 diver threat war largely eliminated, the attacks only stopped when the last launch site was over-run on 29th March 1945, so ADGB was using 150 grade fuel well into 1945. Below are 2 Operational Reports from ADGB Spit LF Mk IX 150 grade fuel, 25lbs boost, Armed Recce sorties, from England to the Continent and back. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...p_16sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ep-27aug44.jpg By the end of June 44 ADGB and 2nd TAF had flown almost 46,000 sorties of ground operations, losing 740 aircraft in the process. (Fighter Command 1939-45 by David Oliver, ISBN 000 7629087) Also, during July 44 ADGB Spitfires took part in operations over France, particularly to take Caen. 2nd TAF Mk IX Spitfires continued operations on the continent to the end of the war and were one of the major users of 150 grade fuel and 25lbs boost. A DCS Spitfire Mk IX 25lbs boost should be very much in keeping with the historical time-line of the Normandy 1944 Map, which includes England. Moreover, I believe that the 25lbs boost Spit Mk IX would in no way be out of place, as some tend to claim, for the historical area of operations depicted on the forthcoming DCS map. In fact, almost any version of the Mk IX Spit is more in keeping with the Normandy 1944 map than any other WWII aircraft currently provided by DCS. However, given the later advanced WWII German aircraft opposition in DCS at the moment, and the Me 262 in the pipeline, the addition of a Spitfire Mk IX with 25lbs boost would be a much needed addition to the DCS WWII aircraft stable and totally in keeping with the new map. Of course, the Normandy map will be able to be used for any number of scenarios and aircraft types and I am by no means suggesting that its use should be limited to Normandy 1944. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Racoon, You are a superstar :thumbup: Thank you so much for the work, passion and dedication you are putting into this map. As a rule I don't give rep to ED team members, but in your case you have positive rep and many many thanks from me. South of England, yes!! :) I am getting more and more faith in the DCS WWII project; thank you ED Team! Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman