SuperEtendard

The Fw 190 got the 1.65 ata with C3 injection in the first supercharger speed for the Jabos initially (mid 1943 iirc), in the A-5/U17 which was later redesignated F-3 when mass produced in that configuration. The Jabo variants use this setting, extra boost (1.65 ata) for low altitudes (below 1000 meters) with C3 injection in the first supercharger gear, including the F-8. Later on the Fw 190 A-8 got in July 1944 a new engine setting, 1.58 ata for the first supercharger gear and 1.65 ata for the second supercharger gear, without C3 injection. Now looking at the DCS Fw 190 A-8 cockpit pictures and the info one of the devs shared, looks like they will model it after a particular plane that was shotdown in June 1944, so in theory it wouldn't have this increased setting (only 1.42 ata for the fighter version). The extra power was activated via a red button below the speed indicator, which isn't there in the cockpit pictures they published. So unless they confirmed it will get 1.58/1.65 setting it would be with the 1.42 ata 1700 HP engine power for the fighter configuration. The A-8 isn't in a particularly good place in this situation, it is heavier with a high wing loading, and draggier airframe while having the same power as the 190A from the previous years. The speed is slightly faster than the Spitfire LF Mk IX at low altitude, but slower at mid and high alts. It will have to make hit and run tactics, and if it's caught in a bad situation it won't be able to run away in level flight, it will need to dive. The P-51 will be much faster at all altitudes, and looks like better climber and more agile as well. Some graphs comparing the speeds of these fighters (the A-8 without the bomb pylon in both cases). With the increased 1.58/1.65 ata power available the situation improves against the Spit at low/mid altitutes, though against the P-51 it would be more or less the same. A good choice would be to have both options available, one for 1.42 ata and the other with 1.58/1.65 so mission designers can choose which setting is appropiate with the timeframe they want to simulate. For both early/mid and mid/late 1944.

Buenas, no se como funciona en DCS. Pero sí, la 2060 es similar a la 1070Ti, y en esa gama de productos es de lo mejor en relación calidad/precio. La 2070 es significativamente más cara pero solo alrededor de 11% en promedio más potente dependiendo del juego. Si ahora tienes la 1060 según tu firma deberías notar una mejora sustancial en la mayoría de los juegos (no se el caso particular de DCS).

They said they want to do planes for the map, but those will come after it and it's still a long term project, they will first make the planes they have announced so far. The planned planes would be the Sea Harrier FRS 1, Mirage III, Super Etendard and IA-58 Pucará.

The 109 does have a constant speed propeller, but the automatic manifold pressure/RPM linkage means that different throttle settings have different RPMs. Say 1.15 ata with 2300 RPM, 1.3 ata with 2600 RPM and 1.42 ata with 2800 RPM in early 109G. So changing throttle should sound different. At a given throttle position the sound should be the same regardless of speed (only in very fast dives when the governor can't keep up or once the prop reached it's pitch limit and can't adjust anymore, then RPM will start to rise and you will notice sound change).

For the A-8 and D-9 it doesn't affect that much because of the bulges housing the 13mm machine guns. In the D-9 and in other flight sims you can see even with the "compromise" frame size the mg bulges above it, so you would be looking at them rather than in front of the plane, if refraction was fully modelled.

What's the MW 50 supply in the K-4? in the earlier 109s with the DB 605 AM engine it's around 27 minutes of supply IIRC Without MW 50, with B4 fuel the engine should get damaged quickly at the 1.8 ata regime. Btw the time limit system you mention has a bit of leeway which is randomized, up to 50% if you are lucky, so it isn't that bad imho.

I think if you were to make an Argentine Skyhawk the A-4C with the retrofitted 5-pylons would be a nice choice.

Yes, but looks like there isn't one of them coming any time soon. The F-5E will have to do, that's why I think it's sensible to have it restricted to ther rear-aspect missiles if you ask me (if MiG-19 vs F-5 is the main focus of the mission/server that is).

It's also a bit too much to expect the MiG-19P to fight planes with all aspect IR missiles imho... If you want to recreate the gunfights and crappy missile combat there was in the 60s, no point in featuring the MiG-19 in a mission with all the toys available for the later planes.

Afaik the EA didn't have RWR because it was intended as a pure interceptor guided by ground control radar operators, RWR wasn't considered needed for the Argentine Air Force in that context, the equipment was available for export, but they chose not to have it in the planes.

The Argentine version of the Mirage IIIE (EA) didn't have RWR nor countermeasures either, btw. IIRC the only plane with that capability in the Arg side was the Super Etendard. Appart from the R.530 the EA also used Magic Is, the Dagger/M-IIICJ would use Shafrir 2s. How do these missiles compare to each other? Only thing I know is both are rear aspect, but I don't know which one is better.

If it's going to be Mirage IIIE, then the be it the Mirage, but if it will be Mirage IIICJ, I would prefer the Dagger, for the sake of accuracy.

Hopefully the WIP Mirage IIICJ gets converted to a EA ^^

Is that an S variant? or is the radar bulge masked by perspective?

Are you going to include an E version in the end alongside the CJ? Now there is A/G Radar technology available in the Viggen and also coming with the F-18. I hope they make the E as well :)

Always loved the looks of the MiG-19, it's sleek with the high swept wings, but also kinda rugged with the wider fuselage in comparison to the single engine MiGs, also how it sits on the ground. I would describe it as beautiful and brutal, perfect for a combat plane :thumbup: I know they are J-6s but couldn't find many good quality images from actual MiG-19s in good conditions :(

Why the Yak would be the worst combat aircraft in history ??

I voted Yak-38 because I just find it very sexy plane. It would also be an interesting strike plane for the Soviets