rkk01

Apologies if this sounds controversial… … but I can’t see how or why Marianas have been selected for modern / WW2 settings The modern iteration includes the former wartime US airfields, but these would suggest a post liberation WW2 timeframe, whereas a Japanese occupation period would probably be best?? Now that we have Marianas, it makes sense to back date… … but I would have thought Henderson / Guadalcanal / Solomons would have been a much more interesting choice

Marianas is a really strange choice…

Corsair looks close, and must surely be next…? Based on previous ED statements, either / both the 109G-6 (?) or 190F-8 might still be on the books … but with focus seemingly shifting to the Pacific and Nick Grey’s Hellcat comments, I’d expect the next news to be WW2 Marianas and F6F One for the new year video?? (must admit it does seem difficult to see what the pipeline looks like for warbirds )

I find it hard to hold her in the tail up attitude to gain more speed. Once the tail comes up the tim gets more tricky and it’s easier to fly her along the runway

Ooh, interesting… without breaking forum rules - where might I look???

A quick Google suggests that Iraqi F1EQs downed 3-4 Tomcats… even the Iranian pilots seemed to regard the Mirage as the most capable Iraqi opponent For their part, the F1s seemed to have performed well against Iranian F-4s and F-5s

All manuals available on DCS website Light reading…!

Take off behaviour changed after the last update… now requires a longer run and more care

Surprised by my recent reading, which commented on the Seafire vs the well known and lauded US carrier fighters. Apparently, even to the end of the war, the Seafire was the best allied carrier borne interceptor - the classic Spitfire role. This was an important anti-kamikaze role, with the Seafire having much higher acceleration and rate of climb compared to the Hellcat and Corsair

Time to get every air-worthy and ground running warbird into the sim… Crazy…? Of course … but how long is left to capture the flight characteristics, sounds and pilot experience for these aircraft? Every year sees more airframe losses (and aircrew sadly). Even for scrupulously maintained aircraft like the BBMF, each year add airframe hours - how much longer before the Lancaster follows the Vulcan into “retirement”? And, whatever individual position we all hold on climate change and fossil use, how long will society allow or justify the use of powerful, high octane fuelled aero engines? In 10 years time many of us will be unable to buy a fossil fuelled car - a similar timescale could see Merlins, Double Wasps, DBs etc relegated to static display So, as an “archival project” - digitally capture all that is required to preserve the flying attributes of these historical artefacts before they are all grounded..! More than can be expected for a single commercial entity, but might work as a public-private heritage partnership…!? Posted to provoke thoughts…

F Mk III would be excellent… but feel free to go for the full fat Griffon version…

Trim out, swap to nav seat…

More like the crew were spinning a line

Thanks for the very useful response… … not least because I’m running a very similar setup - OC i5 6600K, 32 GB RAM, but with an RTX 3070 GPU Sounds like the G2 would be good to have…

Been wavering on taking the VR plunge for 12 months or more… but with the but with the Reverb G2 generally more available and flight hours clocking up in the Mossie, I am quite tempted. The Mossie cockpit is large by DCS standards and does need a fair bit of looking around to find stuff / see stuff clearly Can anyone offer their thoughts on flying the Mosquito in VR?

I’ve seen the Hendon Typhoon… It’s as irrelevant to DCS as the BBMF Lanc. There’s more chance of getting data from the RB396 project (it is now at Duxford…) and of RB396 getting airborne, than of getting access to a unique National artefact in Hendon. I’m not sure that people are getting my “extinct” reference…. These museum exhibits aren’t living breathing examples - they are like the stuffed animals in Natural History museums. Duxford is distinctly different (in the UK) - just seeing drip trays under the aircraft tells you that

I never referenced “flying” examples as my benchmark…. but it took me about 30 seconds to find a video of a Dora engine run. The point being, as much as I’ve looked, I still don’t know what a Sabre sounds like - there’s no online video evidence. Re “extinct”… I did use these “…” - ie it’s as good as, at the moment. RB396 is still a box of parts, but it does look like they are making progress on the rear fuselage. BUT - that Sabre is still the missing link… until the RB396 project get the ex-Cranfield Sabre running, the engine and the aircraft remains “extinct” - boxes of parts or stuffed museum exhibits. I really do wish them every good fortune in getting RB396 running, or even flying again. There are similarities with the Jumo 004 engined 262 - absolutely exhilarating to see and hear it ground run, but who would dare fly such a rare airframe and engine? Both the Jumo 004 and Sabre had a lethal reputation for failure and killing pilots. 10 hrs between strip down is often referenced for the jet - but I understand they were an early and easy “refit by replacement”. Pretty sure I’ve also heard rumours of 10 hrs service life for the Sabre as well Regarding the Tempest II, in the context of this discussion, it’s a totally different aircraft. If we are going to have a Bristol Centaurus engined fighter, we might as well go straight to the Sea Fury - which would be a dream in DCS

I guess this is where we all have our own individual positions on early access… I’d happily take the aircraft and get familiar with flying her

Is this thing on short finals…???

I have to say that the Mosquito is an absolute gem… One of the delights that is so easy to miss with this module is… … just how much extra depth flying a twin brings to DCS - engine operation and management, shutdowns, feathering, single engine landings, even fuel management is so much more critical “Bring ‘em on…!” More twins PLEASE P-38 is the most compelling case, and should probably be close to the top of the warbirds list But there are a number of other twins worthy of consideration - ie are right up there Bristol Beaufighter - caused havoc with Coastal Command and as a TF. X would make a great Strike Wing pairing with the Mossie FB.VI. Also renowned for it’s hard hitting campaigns against the Japanese, often paired with Spits Bf 110 - much requested as a Luftwaffe twin… just not sure what would work in DCS. Outclassed for day ops in our time period, but a Lichtenstein equipped version would be very interesting Ju-88… as a Schnellbomber or Nachtjager… or just please make it flyable as is Mitsubishi G4M - if we’re turning towards the PTO, then the Betty is a must have AI… If I had to pick one, it would have to be the Beaufighter… …or, perhaps, perhaps… the Westland Whirlwind just need a Peregrine barn find, or two!!!

Agreed - very much like the news sounds on rev adjustment I have to say that flying a twin has added a heck of a lot to DCS

Got badly hit on a bomber intercept - I thought most of the damage was on the nose, but was manifest in really odd handling…. Elevator control seemed really unresponsive - nothing, nothing, nothing, sudden pitch up to steep climb / near stall… Correct with stick forward - nothing, nothing, nothing … nose straight for the deck Behaviour was more controllable with full fine pitch, full flaps and throttle control of climb / descent - put her on the tarmac at Manston, but was very badly bent ETA - point being, is this new with the recent update, or just something I hadn’t encountered before???

Both the Typhoon and Tempest would be amazing… … but as has been posted many times before - how do you model an “extinct” aircraft and engine to DCS standards??? I’ve tried to search for a running Napier Sabre quite a few times - based on that (admittedly limited research) I don’t think anyone even knows what one sounds like (that’s why the vid of the Jumo engined 262 was SO exciting - seriously!! that’s a “real” 262, running on actual 262 turbines…! just WOW) Would be seriously exciting to reach the same point for a Sabre engined aircraft) ETA - and if anyone thinks Napier’s “H” 24cyl Sabre engine is complex… just search for their 18cyl Napier Deltic marine / rail engine

Anyone would think it was only the Yanks that turned up (acknowledging that Pacific was largely a US show…)

This is where you are misunderstanding my OP (either intentionally, or unintentionally…) I don’t care whether I win or lose a 1v1 against the AI… the point of flying a simulated dogfight is to learn the a/c, employ BFM and counter “enemy” tactics… I’m there to learn which is pretty near impossible if an AI FW190 can do stuff a player 190 can’t do..(or for that matter a RL 190, given how frequently the modules are defended on a “correct as is” basis) If the player and AI aircraft are capable of the same moves, at the same airspeeds , then I’ll carry on and learn them - I’ve just not yet managed to get a 190 to climb near vertical at 170-180kmh