Terry Dactil

Anyone got it working on the Mosquito yet? I have installed the latest version (2.5.25) and getting some strange results. For example ... 'Options' working when called at the beginning of a mission. 'Options' menu appears just after leaving the ground on takeoff, but does not react to any voice commands but it can be cleared with F12 selection with mouse. Any further Vaicom commands get no reaction only the confirmation beep that it was received. Other standard Voice Attack commands are still working correctly. I have tried deleting the export.lua file in Saved Games and also setting the "use custom DCS path" on, but with no effect. Any suggestions?

Yes. Don't release the brakes until the power has completely stabilized and it goes straight like it's on rails. To be pedantic, with equal thrust from both engines there should be a slight left turning tendency due to the 'P-factor' offsetting the total thrust line slightly to the right of the aircraft centerline. However, if you have noticed this, just set slightly more boost on the left engine before you release the brakes and it will be gone.

Voice Attack is great to save using keys or hotas buttons on those hard to click on cockpit controls. I thought of having some British realism with something like ... "I say, Nav old chap, time to have fuel from the main tanks - What?" <appropriate keystrokes from Voice Attack> with Nigel's response "Indeed it is, Sir. , and it has now been done" However, I settled for just "Fuel system - Select Mains" (and other similar fuel selection commands)

Thanks. I didn't know that. Great - they are more than halfway there then. This video of a Merlin running at night shows what it really looks like ... Note that there is nothing to see at a low power, and when something is visible the color is blue not yellow. Also, individually this is visible for only a very brief period; it is not a flame but more like a miniature explosion I suspect that it is only when excess fuel is used for cooling at higher power that the exhaust becomes visible. For comparison this is what we have now ... and it is way overdone and completely unrealistic. However, there has been a lot of good work put into the coding, as I can see the color and exit velocity changing with rpm. A few tweaks and it could be great! Moz 3.mp4

The exhaust flame effects is very good for when the engine is starting but not yet running. However, once the engine is running properly and the exhaust gasses / over-rich flame is exiting at high velocity into a fast slipstream, having it looking like a candle flame wriggling in a slight breeze is not at all realistic.

The sound is a lot better now, and the tone changes with rpm. Very nice. However, there is still no proper beat frequency when out of synch. If you go back and listen to the audio clips taken in the real aircraft you will hear what is should be like.

The excessive nose-up pitch on touchdown is probably part of the problem too.

Yes. It does sound lot better. Still it does not have the out-of- synch audio beat to be even more realistic Disappointing with that bit.

And that is where the error is. You should not have to do that. Consider the following ... The aircraft designers have done their sums and worked out what force will break the undercarriage or have other bits fall off the aircraft. They then apply a safety factor to get the maximum that will be allowed. This has to be converted into something that will be useful to the pilot. This is where our friend Newton and his laws of motion are very useful. Starting with F = Ma we see that for any particular aircraft weight (M) the force (F) depends on the vertical velocity deceleration on touchdown (a). Next V² = U² +2aS shows that deceleration can be reduced by a squishy oleo on the undercarriage providing a large distance (S) in which to stop the vertical velocity. The U² term now gives us the initial vertical velocity or the maximum sink rate on touchdown which the pilot can understand and has some control of. (In commercial airliners I have flown this limit is 600 feet per minute. Anything above about 200 fpm is a hard landing dangerous to the fillings in your teeth and causes passengers to complain)! The next bit gets more complicated. Because the weight (through the CG) and the ground reaction force (through the wheels) are not vertically aligned, there is a torque applied in the pitch plane. This will produce a rotational acceleration in this plane which depends on the rotational moment of inertia , and I have no idea what this value is. This could be the missing ingredient causing the error. I'm pretty sure ED account for this in other aircraft. The tricycle gear aircraft have the reverse touchdown dynamics (pitch down) to taildraggers and they don't have the nose wheel slam down immediately on touchdown. Fix the Mosquito. Pretty please!

Been there - done that! Have a look at this old thread. All the files are available there for a 10cm curved extension.

I am using linear potentiometers moved by the levers to keep the height down to match the Warthog throttle base. These analog outputs go to a BU8036 devices for the USB output. That is seriously under-utilizing the device, so I'll probably add a few switches on top just because I can. Perhaps for the mixture and supercharger because they are in the same area. Not essential though, as I have PointCTRL ant flicking switches in VR is a breeze.

I have done the same, but cannot get it to maintain a small split when moving both. It works but is not perfect. True Mosquito enthusiasts should have two independent pitch control levers, particularly if ED ever get around to separating the engine audio frequencies so there is a beat frequency if they are not synchronized. With this in mind, I have started a project to have two small pitch levers stuck to the side of my Warthog throttle (right side and forward). Unfortunately the Covid lockdowns here have caused massive postal delays, so I am still waiting for some of the bits. (It took over a month to get some 3D printing filament from one side of the city to the other).

Thanks for that. I have had that problem a couple of times now, and been wondering why it happened.

Yes. You need to push the button in for a couple of seconder, then it will lock in until the prop reaches the full travel stop and hydraulic pressure rise and trips it off. (like what happens with the gear and flaps). I have just tested this on the Channel free flight mission, and it feather and comes to a stop even without changing pitch, throttle or fuel - just by pressing the feather button alone. This is another error in the DCS model, as unless the engine is damaged dead and just windmilling, feathering an operating engine will not stop it rotating until the fuel is shut off. I still remember some 50 years ago having the DC-3's THROTTLE - FEATHER - MIXTURE drill hammered into me! The Mosquito feathering drill does call for the fuel to be cut off, but its effect is not correctly sequenced. I've given up on reporting Mosquito bugs as my "excessive pitch up on landing" report is just tagged as "missing info" regardless of many other agreeing and when all ED have to do is try to do a wheeler landing themselves to get the data!

Found this on learning to do wheel landings... Note The stick is moved forward after touchdown; you don't need to stuff the aircraft down onto the runway as some people suggest. Extra speed on the approach for better control of gusts, wind shear, crosswinds, and better visibility in single engine types

The problem we have is that the pitch-up moment should be proportional to the sink rate on touchdown. Take the extreme limit case where you are such an ace pilot that you have reduced the sink rate to zero just as the wheels touch. The aircraft is still flying with the lift supporting all the weight, As there is no weight on the wheels there can be no vertical reaction force from the ground, so there cannot be any pitch up moment. . In fact, there should even be a slight pitch down moment from the drag on the wheels required to overcome the inertia of the wheels spinning up. As the the aircraft slows weight settles onto the wheels the pitch up moment should increase gradually in response to the oleo compression parameter. It appears that we are getting the full pitch up moment as soon as the wheels touch. 3 point landings are no problem at all, but wheelers are bloody difficult and they shouldn't be.

No it's not! In real life doing that will kill you. You fly the aircraft smoothly onto the runway; you don't just dump it there. (I have 1000+ hours in taildraggerrs from Pawnees to DC-3s so I do know a bit about how it is done). This is supposed to be an accurate simulation, not a cheap arcade game.

The preferred method for landing tail wheel aircraft is often tail up, main wheels only. Like this ... Mosquito landing.mp4 However, this is impossible to do with the DCS Mosquito at present as no matter how little the vertical velocity is on touchdown there is a huge nose up pitch moment that cannot be counteracted. It seems that the full aircraft weight is being applied immediately at touchdown instead of ramping up slowly as weight is gradually transferred onto the wheels. I have flown many tailwheel aircraft in real life and all that is required is a minimum sink rate and to nudge the stick forward a bit when you feel the wheels touch. I would love to be able to do the same here.

That's a pity. Missions in VR are pretty much unplayable until until it is fixed.

Any idea when this patch might be available?

Just use "Active Pause" (LSHFT + LWIN + Pause). The aircraft remains fixed in space, but all controls work normally. Perfect for learning how things work. Not so good in a mission, as all other aircraft keep moving while you are stuck in position.

Anyone know where these settings are in the .lua files now? We used to be able to amend the chase view to look back.

Thanks for that info. I tried some exercises at Manston as it looked to be the most level surface available with plenty of clear space. I was never able to successfully taxy on one engine from a standing start. The best result I had was when I had a 15 kt crosswind. This almost worked, and I managed some progress down the runway. However, each brake release/apply cycle cost a few degrees of heading that could not be recovered, so I eventually ran off the side of the runway. ED have got this right and it matches what I have experienced in real life.

Sorry. I should have cut the quote from the original post a few posts higher. I thought that quoting a quote would be tagger with the original and did not bother to check . Anyway, I think most people can work out what I was referring to, just as most people also know the difference between going back and going backwards.

I would be interested to know if you could confirm that you had no assistance from any external turning force helping you like not being on a level surface or with any crosswind. If you could repeat the exercise in the opposite direction that would be significant.