Terry Dactil

Are the guns armed? (Left Shift + Space_

Me too. It can't be absolute pressure 'cause it would show around 15 psi at sea level and negative values mean it's sucking and that's not how engines work. Easy enough to check though. Let's go up to 18,000 feet where the air pressure is about half that at sea level, shut down an engine an see what the boost gauge says then. Here we are at 18,000 feet. Well bugger me! It shows about minus 7 psi now, That's the difference from around sea level and not from ambient as I thought. Thanks grafspee. You made my day! Live and learn!

Agreed that's a fair comment if you ask it about something disputed and there are many different opinions on the internet. However, asking for stuff from official historic documents like aircraft pilot manuals and performance regulations is a pretty safe bet to be correct. What errors did it make in this thread?

Yeah. It's understandable now. My aviation career was after WW2 and performance calculations were greatly improved and more precise. In particular I used (and taught) that the Take-off Safety Speed (V2) was the greater of 1.1 times Vmca or 1.2 times the stall speed. I guess if I was also carrying bombs that would be nowhere fast enough to keep me happy.

Thanks for your explanation Holbeach, what you say is correct. I managed to find a great site for aviation manuals Avialog: Aviation Library and downloaded the Pilots Notes for our Mosquito. It looks like your reference. Since I have been happily flying the Mosquito on one engine at max power by staying above 150 mph, I think adding 65 mph and calling it a 'Safety Speed' is a bit excessive. I would call it a 'Feel Good Speed' All this is understandable since Vmca in performance calculations was not official in WW2. ChatGPT has some interesting stuff on this subject ... The concept of Vmca (Minimum Control Speed Airborne) as a formalized element in takeoff performance calculations did not exist in its modern regulatory form during the development and operational service of the de Havilland Mosquito in the 1940s. Key Points: Vmca as a defined regulatory term became standardized in post-WWII civil aviation regulations, particularly with the introduction of FAR Part 23 and Part 25 by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the 1950s and later by ICAO and EASA equivalents. During WWII, aircraft performance calculations—including for multi-engine aircraft like the Mosquito—were based on empirical testing and operational experience, rather than a codified set of performance speeds like V1, Vr, V2, or Vmca. The Mosquito, being a military aircraft, was not subject to civil certification standards. Its performance charts and procedures included speeds for safety, single-engine climb, and control, but these were not labeled using modern terminology like Vmca. However, the underlying concept of a minimum speed at which directional control could be maintained after engine failure was understood by test pilots and engineers. They considered factors like asymmetric thrust, rudder authority, and yaw tendencies in both design and flight test programs. Summary: Vmca as a formal part of takeoff performance calculations was introduced in the postwar era, particularly with the advent of civil aviation regulations in the 1950s. For the de Havilland Mosquito, such a parameter was likely considered in practice but not named or standardized as "Vmca" in the way we know it today.

Where did you get that from? It's a myth that the Mosquito has a very high takeoff safety speed. Its Vmca (minimum control speed airborne) is 140 ~150 mph depending on weight temperature altitude and other stuff like bank angle. Sure, it's like any other twin and would get very exciting with an engine failure between lift-off and Vmca. Some more info from ChatGPT:... Geoffrey de Havilland, the legendary British aircraft designer and pioneer behind the de Havilland Mosquito, played a unique and bold role in supporting his aircraft's reputation during World War II—not just in the design office, but on the front lines of perception and morale. A persistent myth among some operational RAF crews was that the Mosquito had a dangerously high take-off safety speed, and that the aircraft was extremely difficult—or even impossible—to control if an engine failed on take-off. This belief posed a serious problem: not only could it undermine confidence in the aircraft, but it might also affect performance and mission readiness if pilots hesitated or overcompensated due to fear. To directly combat this, Geoffrey de Havilland himself visited squadrons flying the Mosquito, bringing with him not just technical data, but a dramatic and personal demonstration. On at least a few occasions, he would personally take off in a Mosquito and deliberately cut one engine during the take-off roll—the very scenario pilots feared. Even more impressively, he would then proceed to fly the aircraft on one engine, performing aerobatics such as loops and rolls, to prove that the aircraft could be safely handled even under such adverse conditions. This hands-on approach served several purposes: It dramatically boosted pilot morale and confidence in the Mosquito’s handling characteristics. It dispelled misinformation about the aircraft’s safety and performance. It reflected de Havilland’s personal courage and belief in his design—a powerful endorsement for frontline airmen. De Havilland’s willingness to prove its mettle in such a public and daring fashion became part of the lore surrounding the aircraft.

Agree 100% with bbrz. I used this training aid many years ago to hammer in the message "IF YOU ARE HOLDING CONTINUOUS AILERON YOUR RUDDER INPUT IS WRONG. MOVE YOUR FEET! (the down side of the yoke is pointing to the foot that needs to go in more)

Be aware that a small amount of bank can be helpful. Vmca for the Mosquito is defined with 5° bank into the good engine.

It can help if you know the the best climb performance speeds for the Mosquito. They are Vx (best angle) 140 ~ 150 mph Vy (best rate) 160 ~ 170 mph

I repeated this mission several times and may have found the problem. It is possible to have the large icon centered in the windscreen but with the needles on the gauge in the cockpit slightly off center. If this is the case the bombs will completely miss the target, and the mission fails. My suggested solution is to check the needles at the 5 miles warning, correct if necessary and nail that heading until bombs released.

Suggest you try using Voice Attack. You can then use verbal commands to the (unfortunately still invisible) navigator to do all the complicated multiple keystroke stuff. I get Nigel (my navigator) to read checklists, select the bombs, feather engines, select fuel tanks etc. just like a good navigator should. PM me if you want the profile.

Have you tried adjusting the viewpoint? I use VR and it generally puts me into the cockpit with my head a bit too high and left. You can use the keyboard, but I use Voice Attack and commands to "move seat position" R CTL + R SHIFT + NUM Key (4,6=L,R 8,2=Up,Dn)

Thanks for a great mod. (Sometimes little things can make a big improvement).

@cjayster13 How much memory do you have installed on your system? I checked how much memory gets loaded on my system if all my DCS options are available (12 aircraft modules, 8 terrains and tech packs and 9 campaigns). Started the Mosquito's V for Victory mission 3, along with auxiliary programs Simshaker, OVGME, Voice Attack / Vaicom, and Pimax VR ... Wow ! 27.4 GB If you are running a 36 GB system for an hour or so, then memory leakage from one of the running programs seems quite plausible.