zcrazyx

the mustang might be heavier however you also have to take into account the size of the rudder and its place in the airflow if you're not using brakes or a tail lock, also pushing the stick forwards will lift the tail and make it lighter and easier for it to swing around. the spitfire will run away and ground loop if you try to counter it without brakes at certain speeds. you have to take into account general tailwheel flying techniques as well as wind will affect how fast the tail swings around, furthermore are you using aliaron? as this can also have an effect. just because a gear track is wider does not mean that under the right circumstance it cant be as deadly as that with a more narrow track. imagine taxiing with a crosswind coming right to left at say 30 degrees factor. normally you taxi aliaron into wind and stick back when in a headwind. however seeing as you call for not using a tailwheel lock, in the mustang this requires forward stick to unlock it. the tail will become lighter and less effective because of not having as much pressure on the ground. now, if you were to have into wind aliaron it should speed up the turn rate. once it runs away you have the combined weight of the aircraft and prop rpm factor dragging you in that direction.

Spitfire does not take a lot of punishment, engine wise either the pilot pushes it too hard and blows the radiator lines or if the plane gets hit normally it either explodes or the wings just sheer off.

I feel a lot of issues that people are ecountering with the p51 are because they do not understand the main roles of the aircraft they are flying in and against, the mustang was an escort fighter, so had to have long range, in the escort role there would be many aircraft at altitude fighting at various speed states. that means that turn fights were often way more fluid then just circle fights which seems to be the common theme in dcs, as such it allowed mustangs to fight heavy if they had a wing man to cover their 6 during the chaos. for dcs most fights happen at mid to low altitude, so if a mustang takes off with full wing tanks its going to be heavy, where as with half tanks the performance will be much better. the same applies to some extent with the 109 and wing cannons, with the greater weight you trade performance for firepower. another note on weight and design is that the mustang when heavy acts better as a boom and zoom aircraft much like the FW190 does due to weight. Imagine a FW190 turn fighting a spitfire, this is what it is like when fighting heavy in a mustang while turnfighting the 109 which at low speed should have the advantage due to the design of the wing, having leading edge slats where as the mustang has a high speed laminar flow wing. now onto the engine performance, as was mentioned early on various aspects of the merlins are moddled and they are not the same model of merlin either when it comes to the P-51 and Spitfire. Hence the characteristics are different. knowing the correct parameters for each engine respectively will drastically increase engine life, cruise speeds are much lower as are the settings for the engines then people would think, as such the engine,oil pressure, fuel and coolant are generally far more managable. furthermore the guages can lag behind the actual temp, this is most likely to happen under high power conditions in combat or on take off, the mustang normally locks up on take off with high oil pressure and the spitfire will normally cook the engines in high power low airspeed conditions such as in a climbing stall with high power. this will cause leaks. as such it is paramount to keep an eye on Ts and Ps in all phases of flight compared to jet aircraft. TL:DR knowing the optimum engine paramaters and turning speeds will drastically improve combat capability and drastically reduce failure rate. edit: also if i recall correctly aircraft with merlins are now flown with lower settings due to the original fuel that they used somehow disappearing with regards on the knowledge of how to make it therefor the only way to model this in dcs would be to find old manuals with tables and charts indicating performance from ww2, also suspect that the tuning of the engine would be different to accomadate the different fuel and as such remoddling the engine would be a must.

anyone know what servers this is enabled on?

got me around 7 hours total time in the moth, cant say the stick was hyper sensative, just responsive, considering the aircraft is a flying brick, landing it is always an experiance though! wheeling it on and pushing forwards slightly on the stick to stop the tail from dropping too early getting the fine balance to not dig the prop into the ground or the flare and the fast deceleration that comes when you pitch in to the 3 point or rather stall it down. one thing i can say about the moth though is they're great for spins!

Im so hyped for the mosquito, cant wait to see what ordanance we get, i suspect there may be a lot of wrecks on airfields near us soon :P twin merlins will be awesome as will quad cannons and mgs hehehe, not sure if imma boom and zoom with it or if i'll go low level ground attack. anyone wanna fly with when it eventually reaches us?

Guys at the end of the day this is meant to be a study level combat simulator so it is meant to mimic real life, war is not balanced in real life, i say if a time period is chosen where a great deal of aircraft were using it then it should be added, if it was using it at a different time then why not add it and leave to mission makers to deal with it. if someone can find sources of the p51s we have using 150 then share it.

this may be the helicopter to make me fly rotary more

come on, we all know comrad boris with his AK is a true indestructible force of nature, especially when he has his vodka with him :P as for hitting infantry, zoom, accuracy and explosives are you friend, i used to do strafes in ww2 aircraft in servers and lets just say it took a great deal of practice before i could reliably hit them.

I personally think that another version could be done but that it would have to be majorly different and have substancial backing to produce and make money on. Personally i believe it should be either a two seater version or one that can either air to air refuel and/or carry additional weapons such as the python or hellfire, that being said i do agree with the person who suggested doing the morrocan f5s, they're a substancial upgrade and provide more changes then say adding ils would be. that being said, it would also need to be a version with sufficent information on to make, this could mean that it drastically reduces the choices of versions to get as information could be limited. This would most likely narrow down the choices to the ones used by the U.S.A predomoninantly be it two seater or not. Furthermore there would likely have to be a way for the developer to make other means of money from it, being contract or otherwise which also further narrows down the choices and could make it harder to make.

from my testing over 2 years time, i would zoom climb from 35k ft at mach 2.2 with a 4g pull to vertical and consistently hit 95-100k ft, i did at one point hit over 110k ft and have recorded 104k on two more weeks website. normally taking less fuel helps and knowing how much fuel you should have at what alt and time is useful as Cgjunk mentioned above, you can coast higher with less fuel. I did also try a jato run however the drag and weight are simply too much when vertical it seems. edit: recorded on two more weeks is 91k but i know another artical has the later record, i would suggest finding a good climb speed and following that, if you are looking at zoom climb attempts as opposed to cruising at say 40k ft then you can after burn up with or without a drop tank depending on how many runs you wish to attempt. that being said the restart requirements on the mig 21 are somewhat strict and you must remember the correct heights and speeds to restart otherwise you might fail the restart. sometimes it wont start at all and a dead sticl landing is needed, bare in mind that the controls will stiffen as you lose airspeed, because of this i recommend what i call "space shuttle approach" irony because its not a long continuous glide but instead an over 60 degree nose down with airbrakes out and the nose pointed shy of the runway then at the right moment pull up and flaring. maybe thats just because im bad proper landings :P

If there was a way to instead make the missile fire at a target via a marker on the map that would negate the need for the editor and still require you to know where a target is, it would solve both issues and open up opportunies.

peronally beyond bug squashing for the f5 i dont see a reason for them to touch it, it looks good as is and i dont think its too dated, if however they do touch it, i would suggest making a completely different varient, be it a two seater or otherwise, why? because sure they could do a ka-50 and add a few things here and there but what would be the point? i guess thats okay if you like flying the f5e but it doesnt exactly expand on variety, a two seater, one armed with mavs, or one thats able to air refuel would be a nice refresh of the f5 experiance without making it feel like its too much. that is however my opinion and i understand everyone has their own preferences, tranch 1 typhoon would be sweet though, or a tornado, or a buccaneer with the anti ship missiles, nuclear armament or convention ordanance.

It really depends though, the 25 experiances in the real deal may be more worth it then the 50 in the sim as the real deal has consiquences to mistakes that make the pilot more aware, also having to deal with G forces and general tracking of targets is far different from sim to real life. Some days i've had flying IRL where i can see an aircraft some 25 miles away just by a glint from sunlight, other days i couldn't see one 3 miles away.

mega +1, the lightning is such a unique aircraft that could surely find a place in DCS, Raw performance, 30mm cannons, air to air missiles and on some models rockets. Also the holder of many records

the Mig21 ai model is notoriously broken or should i say old, i say this because it uses the old fm that we used to have for the mig 21 which made it a rocket ship with good energy retention in turns. if you tried to 1v1 an ai mig 21 in the mig 21 the air would always be able to pull away if you followed their manauvers to the T.

+1 para transport and cargo duties also bonus points if you let ivan the mad russian open the back door up and use an AK to shoot pesky helis

NS430 is an obvious choice, its an addon that isnt by any means a must have on the aircraft. it would just work like the L39 and at least you dont have to give anything up to use it. Many aircraft from many years ago use garmins that are bolted on as well as different transponders , radios and hell even instruments sometimes. i say give it to most civil aircraft as it gives them a choice on if they wanna navigate vfr or ifr

I love the cat so far! coming from prop aircraft i would say it might be closer in terms of flying to a prop then a jet, definitely need stick and rudder skill which is very hard to come by in a sim as you cant rely on your internal compass (so to speak) to help indicate when certain controls are needed, I say that as some aircraft have very benign stalls or hard ones to notice, the Mig 19 being one of them, if you fly at 260kmh in a straight line, but if you decend and try to recover with no power change it goes into an accelerated stall, the tomcat appears to do the same. I would say the best way to maybe learn the tomcat is to actually fly the TF51 and do some hard manauvers to build stick and rudder skill on a non fbw aircraft. Or simply to nail doing approaches on a land based runway and build up time flying. Remember that it takes months of training for pilots in the military to get passed their tests and to fly the bird perfectly, safely and to its highest potential.

try /cmd, after it should open the command promt in power shell and you can continue

Actually, as far as i am aware the fighter collection at duxford does not own the Corsair but instead a private owner does however i could be wrong. I make that observation as the last time i saw it was in the private hanger that they also use as part of the museum and if i recall is connected to the conservation part. They might own it and just keep it there as it does fly and i have seen it do so (as well as two spitfires one of which i got to fly formation with while in a Harvard) They also have a PBY Catalina painted in white which looks beautiful, was doing taxi runs the day before an airshow, hope that it still flys. edit: they do own it http://fighter-collection.com/cft/tfc-aircraft-directory/ its a goodyear fg 1d

+1 spitfire tails keep appearing

For me it has to be the Victor, Vulcan, Lightning and Hunter as well as a Buccaneer or perhaps sea vixen. GR7/9 would be sweet as well.

Not sure if it is just me however it would seem that i cannot drop pylons 1-4 using the two buttons . I can open the caps but the zone for the button does not show and instead when i hover the mouse right over the button i get the label for the protective cap instead.

if i only i could, for research of course! XD