Mogster

A couple of the M3 guys (Hiromachi and Rudel) were on the ACS podcast recently for an hour. I seem to remember one of the M3 guys (Hiromachi?) saying they’d like to make the - 4 and - 5. However it sounded like much more of an aspiration rather than something they are actively working on. I was a bit disappointed as I’d much prefer the earlier WW2 versions…

Using brakes on takeoff just sounds bizarre to me, surely it’s too aggressive. The tailwheel was quite fragile in real life it seems.

It’s not just fatigue though, actual strength makes a big difference when flying these aircraft. Then there’s other stuff, a factor in the poor ETO performance of the P38 was the pilots literally freezing to death at altitude. When jumped they were struggling to operate the controls with frostbitten fingers, and the P38 has a lot of levers… The La-5/7 were known for fumes entering the cockpit, German evaluation of captured examples mentioned this, as did Eric Brown during his evaluation of the La-7. I’ve no idea how you model these human factors but historically they were very important.

Safer but also preventing damage to the aircraft also. WW2 aircraft were relatively cheap by modern standards, pushing a few over the side every trip was sustainable and expected. You do that regularly with FA-18s or god forbid F35s and the bean counters will have an aneurism… Although s**t still does happen…

Just imagine, one day we may have the A6M Zero, Ki-43 Oscar, La5/7, the I-16 may have historical playmates…

Wouldn’t those sorts of manoeuvres have the possibility of structural damage? I suppose in reality the control aero forces at high speed would exhaust any pilot pretty quickly. There’s quite a bit in one of Eric Brown’s books about high speed dive tests in the Spitfire and the controls becoming very stiff over 400mph.

The P-38 must be coming at some stage surely. Flying examples, easy access and you’d imagine decent data would seem to put it in the low hanging fruit category. It’s an iconic popular aircraft with what amounts to groupies so you’d imagine it’d sell extremely well…

The P-61 often flew often with only 2 crew, there’s even several photos of aircraft in the field with only 2 names painted on the side. It seems the turret was frequently removed by squadrons, either when they broke down and proved impossible to field repair or just to improve performance. Also apparently the aircraft often shipped without the turret, it was the same item as on the B29 and the B29 installations had priority. Northrop’s intention seems to have been to retrofit the turrets in the field when they became available but in reality the opening was faired over and the second crew member could then move through the fuselage and interact with the pilot which the crews preferred. Further there are apparently reports of crews being night blinded by the muzzle flashes from the turret so that could be a further reason for its removal. The whole 1930s turreted heavy fighter concept that was so popular quickly proved to be flawed when aircraft like the BP Defiant were readily hacked from the skies early in WW2. It’s bizarre that Northrop continued to pursue the concept in the face of real combat evidence.

Yes it’s a cracking module and really deserved some early war AI assets for some time. As is sadly I’m just not sure what I’m supposed to do with it in the current DCS environment.

Both the He 219 and P-61 are fascinating aircraft with he same mission in mind. Both are very cool looking planes, if looks were the only criteria they’d have been war winners... However Like the He 219 the P-61 was also a average/bad aircraft suffering from protracted development and poor design decisions. With the P-61 program the AAF had all its eggs in one basket. There was immense pressure to convince Washington that the basket was a technical marvel and the eggs were tastiest when in reality neither was the case… The AAFs cover up of the disastrous P-61 program was so effective that the lies told to Washington about its performance still pervade the literature to this day. In reality the P-61 was too heavy, too slow and too late, if the AAF could have procured Mosquitoes it would have done so, but it could not. Anyway by the time the P-61 was available it’s projected primary mission was effectively being covered by other types so fortunately it’s failure had no impact on the war. There are many other types that had a greater impact on WW2 that could be included in DCS. Of course this is just my personal opinion

Yes definitely.

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…

Or the “dangerous dustbin” as the crews apparently called it…

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.

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/

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…

All systems being scrapped once obsolete and drawings being burned seems a tad extreme…

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…

La-7 needs a defence of the Reich map, Berlin and it’s surroundings.

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.

No it’s not normal. It sounds like something is moving the trim to 100% deflection.

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.

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.

Looks to have gone tits-up unfortunately.

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.