xvii-Dietrich

Old thread, I know, but I've been trying these exact procedures trying to improve my take-offs. I've seen Little_D's videos, so I know that his take-offs are really smooth. I am taking off-okay, but it is still really wobbly and quite a struggle to get it level and stable as I go airborne. What I am wondering, is whether there are any changes being made to the ground-trim. What I mean by that, is that in the settings (outside of the mission) you can select the special settings for the Bf 109 and then set the aileron and rudder trim tabs. What sorts of values are pilots using there?

I recently bought the P51D and the Charwood campaign, and I'm looking forward to flying it. However, I have very little experience with the P51D and what little I had, I've mostly forgotten. (I do have loads of experience with the 109 and 190 though). Anyway, the lack of experience gave me an idea. What I want to do, is set myself a training regime, learn on the TF51D first, and then train on the P51D. Then, when I've completed my training, I'll start the campaign. I've been experimenting with the Mission Editor, and am comfortable building test missions, training ranges, target practice etc.. So, the question is how much practice should I give myself? How much training did real WW2 P51 pilots get before they went into combat? Was there taxiing-training first? If so, how much? Did they do touch-and-go type training flights? How many flight hours did they get in the TF51D trainer? How many flight hours solo in the actual P51D? Did they use practice ranges? Or fire off live ammunition? Based on this, I can make up an historical training regime. So any information or suggestions would be most welcome! Thanks. PS: I've also seen a few historical training videos (e.g. ). Does anyone know of any other good immersive material that I could use?

Just saw the newsletter.It is extremely encouraging to hear that they are continuing work on the P-47D and have not just given up due to lack-of-data. The cockpit details look superb. I am really looking forward to this one.

These are really good ideas. The ability to better utilise existing maps would be pretty neat. For example, we are considering using part of the Caucasus map to represent the Gothic Line (ref). Being able to add WW2-style airfields and the occasional village would make it pretty convincing, even without wholesale reworking. And the ability to rename towns on the map would really help with the immersion. The same thing goes for empty corners of other maps. For example, I could imagine forming WW2 North Africa scenarios using empty stretches Persian map, if we could place simple airfields templates.

Great, thanks! But it looks like the wrong link. I think you meant this one... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3271307/

Have you picked out which questions to ask? Various people have put forward some interesting suggestions and I, for one, am indeed very interested and am looking forward to reading the answers to them.

How much fuel do you have? Are you loaded up with external stores? Also wondering if you have correct engine power, boost, etc.?

I have the P51D, Bf 109 and FW 190. (I'm waiting for the Spit to get external stores before I get it.) Of the ones I have though, I spend by far the most time in the 109, because I enjoy it so much. Ground handling, takeoffs and landings are all tricky -- which is good, as it was supposedly like that historically. But in the air it is really nice... sort of "intuitive" somehow. The 109 also has some stores (e.g. you can take an SC250 bomb for ground attack), and the systems and avionics are enough to be interesting, without being overwhelming. The 109 also has that older, classier-looking airframe (although I concede this is personal taste!). The P51D and FW 190 are also good, but the Bf 109 is by far my favourite.

I've already made my suggestions. However, in discussing with others (MAD, Jarhead, Philstyle, AH71-Rob, et al.), a few ideas came up that I thought were worth mentioning. 1. DCS has the mechanism to do carriers. Is there any WW2 aircraft carrier that would suit and the plane to match it? The suggestion I heard was to do A6M-v-F4F, which I don't think makes sense - it is too far removed from what we already have. But I am wondering if there is something in the North Atlantic that might work? 2. As an alternative to the Ju 88, there is the Me 410. It was used in KG51, so it is suitable historically. There are also museum examples (e.g. Cosford, UK). I personally think the Ju 88 is a better choice, but the Me 410 is certainly a strong and suitable alternative. 3. Historically, the Hawker Typhoon was used in large numbers and would be a suitable addition. In order to try to maintain historical consistency, it would make more sense to implement a Typhoon in preference to a Tempest. The P-38 is also a contender in this regard, with the advantage of being a twin. Personally, I think the Mosquito is better, but from an historical-numbers arguments, these are good alternatives. As I said, none of these would be my choices, but I am just reporting them here in the interests of broadening the debate.

1. How important is it to have access to real aircraft when working together with ED on developing new WWII modules? 2. As an owner of real WWII aircraft, does this ever give Nick Grey the privilege to interact/inspect the aircraft of other WWII collections?

Ju 88 C-6 It is the C-6 sub-type (V./KG40, later I./ZG1) that was used before and during the Allied invasion, not the A-series (glass nose) nor G-series (night-fighter). The C-6 was also used against B-17s . Still any Ju 88 is better than none. Bf 109 G-6 The most common German war plane variant ever; used on all fronts. Definitely used at Normandie and a better match to the existing Allied aircraft than the K-4. Mosquito FB.VI We also need an Allied twin-engine multi-role aircraft with a variety of payloads (rockets, bombs, gun-pods), and suitable for the Normandie map/era. The FB.VI is preferred, but others are also okay. Whatever gets added, DCS WWII needs a coherent planeset. This means adding aircraft that suit the map, suit the era and suit the other planes (which means we can fly historically-consistent missions with or against each other). Although I like multiengine-heavies, I think they are far better as AI. These are big-formation, long-range aircraft, and are neither suited to single-player missions, nor the multiplayer environment. AI... yes!!!! Flyable? There are others that far are better choices.

Aren't there any plans at all for WWII? P-40? Anything? :( Is there any hope of getting the existing alpha-releases finished? (e.g. Spitfire droptanks? C-47 Asset? Ju-88 asset?*) :huh: Please don't abandon WWII, ED. * Ref: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2017-06-02_DCS210-1/