Mogster

The main purpose of the Sea Mosquito seems to have been the delivery of High Ball in an anti shipping capacity. 2 carriers with High Ball equity Mosquitos were despatched to Australia with the intention of engaging the Japanese fleet. The concept of the RN rocking up late to the party and high balling the Yamato to the bottom seems to have been too much for the USN and high ball was never deployed...

As a long term MSFFB user I used to think I couldn’t enjoy flight simming without FFB. The lack of precision from the MSFFB Began to grate and I took the plunge and bought a TM Warthog, mainly with the intention of using it with DCS A10 and still flying the props with the MSFFB. I’ve been so impressed with the WH that I’ve never used the MSFFB since I bought it, the WH is now mounted below my desk and has a 10 inch extension which has also made flying the Spitfire in particular a dreamy experience. Would I like a high quality long throw FFB stick base , yes, but it seems there’s nothing available in the mainstream <£500 GBP market. In the meantime there are good sticks available with far better precision and ergonomics than the trusty old MSFFB.

It’s a shame we can’t have a map including England and Germany, it’d be great to fly missions with realistic long range profiles. Flying deep into enemy territory, having to switch between maximum economy and max performance and back again to survive, waiting for interception at any time. It’d be compelling and very very tense I think.

The F4F and Avenger also. I’d no idea the FAA Avengers saw so much action in the ETO, even operating from land bases. FAA Avengers even destroyed a couple of V1s apparently... http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_grumman_avenger_UK.html

The F6F was used by the FAA in Europe, maybe not in huge numbers but it was there. It’s not outrageously unhistorical to have an FAA F6F mixing it with 109s and 190s.

The F6F may not be exotic but it has excellent historic references in English. Even better there are loads of flyable and static examples that are very original. I can see that makes it attractive to ED as a DCS aircraft.

Incredible that’s the real sound of Jumo 004s again. Hopefully we’ll hear a Napier Sabre again sometime.

Were Ls used at all in the ETO? I thought by late 44 P38s were being replaced by P51s apart from odd examples that were used for recon, personal hacks etc.

Yes the Meteor would be good also.

There are several flying replicas with modern engines. You’d think they’d give some window on the flight character of the originals.

The 262 was operational in spring 1944, just over a 1000 were built with 200 being available at any one time. Those numbers are quite similar to the numbers of available Spit XIV and Tempest V, neither of which were available at a squadron level in large numbers either. The Tempest V and Spit XIV also became operational in early 1944, similarly to the 262. If the 262 didn’t have a great impact on the war due to its limited availability then surely we should rule out the Tempest and Spit XIV for similar reasons? I have some sympathy for ED, I suspect the 262 would be difficult to model accurately for several reasons. It wasn’t some never operational prototype though, it was as available as the RAF types I mentioned.

Yes. Manston was a designated emergency landing ground for returning damaged heavies. Big long wide concrete runway. https://www.manstonhistory.org.uk/manston-layout-history/

It could even be a contractual issue. Things of that sort have happened in the past. Not saying it is this time of course.

I try to be positive in these boards but it’s frankly ridiculous that the larger churches and castles aren’t modelled yet. They are major landmarks from any era and are major VFR reference points. The first time I flew around The SE in my Spitfire and realised they hadn’t modelled Canterbury Cathedral I couldn’t believe it...

Bear in mind that even some of the early modules have been updated with new 3D and textures recently. I find it very hard to believe people would be satisfied with art from 6 years ago. At a glance they don’t look anywhere near the quality of the recently released stuff.

With its incredible service record Illustrious really should have been preserved as a museum ship, along with the Warspite, Rodney maybe. Oh well... Rodney was built at Lairds and as well as dismantling the Bismarck spend a lot of time in the Atlantic on convoy duty. It could have been the centrepiece of the battle of the Atlantic museum in Liverpool. In my money no object alternate reality...

I really don’t think you can compare a modern ecu controlled turbine with a high output WW2 piston.

Griffon Spit XIV, Tempest, Typhoon?

It’s often overlooked but the British Pacific Fleet grew considerably towards the end of 1944. By Okinawa the BPF consisted of over 200 ships and subs including 6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers and 9 escort carriers. 7 of the fleet and light carriers were equipped with F4Us. All this build up was to support the anticipated land battle for mainland Japan of course.

The possibility of engine failure seems to be a constant worry among historic warbird pilots, it must have been the same back in the day.

By asymetric power I feel he means the engines producing different power levels due to build or wear. That’s what I mean when I say it won’t be a problem in DCS, you always start with new engines. In real life I’d imagine it’d be quite a serious issue. I’m aware there is a random element to performance with the DCS warbirds but will it extend to two different engines?

Won’t the F6F and the F4U eat the Zero for breakfast though. In the hands of an excellent pilot the Zero will still be dangerous but for most it’ll just be cannon fodder against F4U and F6F zoom bys. Really suitable opponents would be the Ki61, Ki84, N1K but I’d imagine references for any of those those would be difficult.

Neil Williams wrote that the Mosquito was surprisingly sluggish below 200kts and morphed into a shark above it. He says that swinging on takeoff due to asymetric power from the engines was a common problem, although it probably won’t be in DCS. Safety speed on 1 engine was 180kts, achieving this speed was difficult as with the massive landing gear down you could only do 140kts with the throttles firewalled. Landing gear gear retraction was ponderously slow so once in the air you had to struggle along waiting for the gear to retract hoping one of your engines didn’t pack in... Once the gears up it accelerated well but not as quickly as a Spitfire. Landing required keeping the speed up as once the gear comes down you’re struggling to stay in the air. A 30point landing keeps the small tail surfaces in the airflow, once the drops swinging can happen as on takeoff.

People seem to have forgotten what a complete banjax the original Kickstarter was. As an original top level supporter I’m always aware that I could have easily ended up with nothing. Instead thanks to ED I’ve received a handful of excellent digital warbirds. So thanks ED