Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mogster

  1. Yes, I can see these things add realism but some things are far easier to do in rl than on a pc monitor. The switch covers serve no purpose in the sim but require an additional button press. In rl you’d flick the cover open with a finger before operating the switch in one easy motion, in the sim it’s another key combo to remember…
  2. Mogster

    B.IV or B.IX

    Or the “dangerous dustbin” as the crews apparently called it…
  3. Pilots reviews at the late 1944 Pauxnet Joint Fighter Conference placed the F4U behind the P51 and P47 as a fighter aircraft above 25000ft. Below 25000 pilots placed the P51 and F4U around equal. This makes sense as compared to the P51 in particular the F4U isn’t a very aerodynamically efficient aircraft, but as a carrier plane defending ships against attacks rarely from more than 15000ft then that’s just fine. Horses for courses, the F4U wasn’t designed with high altitude performance in mind. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the F4U is a large heavy aircraft, much heavier than the P51. Size and weight don’t tend to help manoeuvrability.
  4. Brown’s dislike of the F4U and love of the F6F is well documented, he also preferred the FW190 over the Me109. Being primarily a carrier qualifying test pilot he did place a lot of stock in how the average pilot could manage the aircraft and particularly landing characteristics, areas where the F4U scores poorly. His aircraft rankings were just his personal opinions and preferences and he never attempted to pretend anything else. He did fly the aircraft though and was trained to review them in an analytical fashion which gives weight to his opinion. Brown was employed as a consultant by LM early on in the F35 program, his opinions and insight were valued right up to his death. His books are great reading although some are out of print now. Theres some discussion about his personal ratings on this thread. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/eric-browns-duels-in-the-sky.32785/
  5. The drawings especially are part of history, they should be retained for future generations… but anyway… Aye it does make you wonder if any UK stuff can be modelled to a reasonable level, even stuff from 40+ years ago. Razbam have said that the AV8 and Tarawara we have were supposed to be a GR7 and Illustrious iirc, but too much information on the GR7 was unavailable…
  6. All systems being scrapped once obsolete and drawings being burned seems a tad extreme…
  7. With Blue Fox it seems we are very much talking about radar being used as a basic search tool aren’t we? No advanced targeting or involvement in weapons employment. Quite similar to WW2 other than the fact after closing the aircraft has IR missiles to attack with. Just so people understand what’s available, or not…
  8. La-7 needs a defence of the Reich map, Berlin and it’s surroundings.
  9. I agree about the interactive training missions. Campaigns are difficult as the I-16 doesn’t have anything (AI or flyable) remotely close to historical opposition.
  10. No it’s not normal. It sounds like something is moving the trim to 100% deflection.
  11. Transferring the MAV page to the highlighted button 14 does work but a new user wouldn’t know this. They’ll probably quit in frustration after a few mission re-loads and not return.
  12. It would be good to know how the real aircraft was loaded. You’d imagine the main tanks would be loaded first, or would you always take a full fuel load? just in case. Short filling then ditching in the Channel would seem stupid.
  13. Looks to have gone tits-up unfortunately.
  14. RV Jones book “the very secret war” has some detail about WW2 radio navigation, radar and countermeasures. For WW2 night fighting you really need vectors by ground stations. Night fighters would be vectored onto a target then use their own radar in the general area it seems. One mystery is why the Luftwaffe failed to attack landing RAF and USAAF heavy bombers more often when the occasional dawn/dusk attacks of this type were quite successful. One suggestion is that the Germany high command preferred the propaganda value of allied aircraft being brought down over German held territory rather than on English soil.
  15. Compared to the F4U (and other WW2 fighters like the Spitfire and P51 tbh) the F6F has always been viewed as utilitarian. The F6F was dropped very quickly after WW2 while the F4U was retained sending a message that the F4U was superior. Grey has as far as I’m aware flown a large sample of WW2 and later aircraft so he’s choosing from first hand experience. To me the fact he likes the F6F so much is interesting, Eric Brown liked the F6F also while famously having little good to say about the F4U. I look forward to flying both the F4U and F6F in DCS.
  16. Dusk EF display. Incredible manoeuvrability, huge AB flames.
  17. Wonder if ED will see an FA-18 sales boost?
  18. The detail is incredible, even down to the animated suspension and flexible hoses on the brake system. It’s a far cry from the wheels just bouncing up and down around the axles as they did in sims only a few years back. Then people ask why these modules take so long to develop
  19. Nick Grey is supposed to be very fond of the Hellcat.
  20. The number of airfields increases and there were significant changes to existing airfields, grass to paved mainly and runways extended. British and German cities (sometime) you have the visible results of bombing. By 1944 you have visible technology such as radar installations, crossbow sites, U-Boat pens. Also the Atlantic wall fortifications. Then there are POW facilities and possibly even concentration camps. Some of this stuff is beyond the scope of the existing maps, but some of it isn’t. I’m sure there’s much much more that people with greater knowledge of the subject than I could suggest.
  21. I can imagine that the Normandy and Channel maps will eventually cover similar areas but in different timeframes. The differences between a summer 1940 map and a 1944 one are quite extensive. I don’t know if that’s what’s intended but it would make sense.
  22. I thought the dorsal fin was added because the cut down rear fuselage to accommodate the bubble canopy led to a decrease in low speed directional stability. A reduced keel effect. At some point it was added OEM from the factory, mod kits were also produced so squadrons could retrofit earlier aircraft. A similar device was fitted to some P51s. Like clipped wings on later Spitfires it seems to have been personal choice if pilots preferred the effect or not, the fin was fairly easily removed/fitted. There are pics of P47s with different shapes/profiles of fin also suggesting pilots experimented with different types, squadrons maybe making their own. I’d imagine what helped less experienced pilots in the landing pattern wouldn’t necessarily impress veterans wanting that extra manoeuvrability in a dogfight.
  23. https://warbirdaviation.co.uk/Profiles/republic-p-47d-thunderbolt-nellie-g-thun-ultimate-fighters/ The additional dorsal fins seem to vary from aircraft to aircraft. G-THUN at Duxford doesn’t have one at all.
  • Create New...