Retnek

PS: mir hat sein GUI-Tool immer gut geholfen, incl. der o.a. Reparaturfunktion. Letztlich ruft er damit die Original-Konsolen-Befehle auf, nur mit mehr Komfort für Mausschubser. Vorsicht, auch per GUI-Zwischenschicht kann man sich DCS wirksam zerlegen.

Das sieht nicht soo falsch aus - da fehlt wohl ein Leerzeichen: ...\DCS_updater.exe repair Anführungszeichen sind normalerweise nur dann nötig, wenn Leerzeichen irgendwo im Befehlspfad vorhanden sind. Der ganze Katalog schön ausführlich:

Very nice mission - a pop-up window during loading, phase "Export Start", mission still is doing fine after that. Hope it helps & thx

The Ka-50-III would profit very much by realizing the Ka-50N- and Ka-50Sh-projects. Add the badly missing night-capabilities, please, that would be an obvious customers stimulation.

Da lege ich doch den Gehstock beiseite und werde hier nahtlos anknüpfen: Damals, jaja, öffel, nun kömmt der Jungbrunnen von DCS, brav-brav, recht so, wohl getan! Daran werden sich die Herren messen lassen müssen.

Folks, I'm blown away! Need coffee? Beer (non-alcoholic until version 1.0)? PLEASE go on with that project, that's beyond anything I could have imagined for DCS.

Let's hope the developers spend time for the FLIGHTsimulator-aspects of DCS. Would be most satisfying to do the real navigation with dead-reckoning, RDF and GEE. For this the brains need (AI-) boots to keep her straight and level!

Another variant, this time without the final straight flight path: " ... The Circle was made to go to one side of the Target, as the Bombs departed Tangentially when released from the Aircraft. Calculations depended on knowing the Height & Speed of the Aircraft, which, of course, the Pilot had to maintain dead Accurately. ..." (https://masterbombercraig.wordpress.com/bomber-command-structure/no-8-pff-group-bomber-command/pathfinder-force-pff/pathfinder-methods/oboe/) According to this the final heading correction offered a last chance to correct to the intended release-heading. If the pilot at that moment was in the process of correcting the plane back into the middle of the Oboe-track the error was just some yards. No problem to release with such a small error to the left or right. Releasing bombs when heading just a few degrees wrong would result in a *much* larger error.

Good find - thx. I *know* I read a detailed description of the procedure in another's veteran report, too. Can't find it - grr! Those 7 sec time for correcting the heading are really short with a good chance to screw it up ... so why taking such a risk? Good question, indeed. But turn it around. Flying a really long track precisely within 30 yards first. And then let the plane go straight & level for 3 min before the drop, without the remote reference? There's a big chance for large errors in those last 3 min, too. You're right, this detail needs to be fixed - I'll try to find an answer. That's one of the most fascinating aspects of mission-building in flight-sims. You believe to understand what happened? Try to simulate it and you soon know what's missing.

Draken35 - from your read-me in "OBOE.txt" "... Release heading. At the time of this writing, it is not clear to the author when the pilot should turn into the release heading but as a best guess, since it is calculated from the release point to the target, is that the pilot should start turning into the release heading when the release signal starts. ..." Smith & Smith (2003, c.a., p134) described the Oboe-training: "... If the run was ultimately completed, the release signal - five dots and a two-and-a-half-second-dash - was transmitted three minutes after (signal) D. I would indicate the start of the seven-and-a-half-second release signal by a dramatic raising of my left arm in front of Johnny who hastily made any small adjustments of his heading to that given at briefing. ..." Bold by me - I think that question is answered. Just 7 seconds to correct the heading AND set the plane back to level again! Those men really had to react on spot. What a pressure to do it right as a marker for a large raid. Failure means hundreds of bomb-loads wasted and maybe a number of air-crews killed for no or at least disappointing results. As always with a bit of caution about details published 50 y later. But they describe THE critical phase of all the Oboe-missions. Both Mr. Smith show a great respect for details all the time - I see no reason not to trust them.

Good reading - bomber support mostly, good overview over 100 Group operations. I very much hope there will be mods to simulate ground- and sky-markers. The Viggen-inventory has some nice flare bombs for target illumination - hopefully to modify and use as target-markers or even a kind of night-photo-flash? A lot of bomber-mission types should be available without the drop-snout, too.

Wow - thx! That's exactly what I was hoping for! Here's a first-hand WW2-report by a Mossie-navigator about Oboe-missions (pp 141): Smith, Albert; Smith, Ian (2003): Mosquito pathfinder. A navigator's 90 ww2 bomber operations. Manchester: Crécy.

Since there's a direct relation to the FuG-16-topic: Afaik still open.

Mikhail does a great job, folks! Hardware came within a few days to Germany right to my door. Very well protected, no administrative acts - paperworks perfectly done! Checked the hard-, firm- and software - flawless. That's very good craftsmanship, no gaps, no waggles. Screwed the mount to my wooden chair, adjusted the collective (freedom given by the mount plus-minus 10 cm ca.), tighten again - rock-solid. Only thing to do - same solution I use for the Virpil-joystick: a holey old sock fixed with a rubber-band to cover the mechanics against dust. Thank you Mikhail!

That's a strange interpretation of the capability of the Freya-radar-set plus crew. Freya has been the the most abundant search-radar for Luftwaffe and German Navy. There have been special procedures with Freya-radars tracking single targets for ground-controllers directing night-fighters ("AN-Verfahren"). But the vast majority of Freya-operations were early-warning searches to provide data for early-warning and/or pre-directing the "Würzburg"-targeting radars . Freya always had a 360 degree search-capability. It was the job of the Freya-crew to "scan" a given sector as good as possible. Sometimes 360 degree, sometimes just a pre-ordered sector. In 1943 three "standard"-Freya-radars were combined into a form of 360-degree-early-warning-center ("Igel-Stellungen") where a single Freya-device was responsible for a 120-degree-sector. I'd suggest to take this 120-degree sector as a strong hint on the "reliable-surveillance-capability" of one Freya-device. Hopefully the developers find a way to extend the detection time if a single Freya-radar is given a larger sector to survey. Maybe a higher probability to loose targets. Another problem to solve would be the upper limit of single targets or target-groups (i.a. formations) the crew of one Freya-radar was able to resolve. How many targets they were to follow with some dependability. What about the difference between green and experienced crews? Some Freya-Radars ("Dreh-Freya", late 1943) were equipped with a screen for 360-degree-representation of the air-situation. In 1944 for early-warning the Freya-radar played a secondary role compared to it's "larger silblings" like "Wassermann" and "Mammut". Until 1945 hundreds of Freya-devices were present in nearly all radar-sites fully integrated into the early-warning- and fighter-guidance-services of the Luftwaffe.

Hello Mikhail, please add me to your list: Ulrich, Germany Thx in advance!

I've tried to find any hint on this - sorry, nothing. Just one note on the optional long-range fuel-tanks sometimes placed in the bomb-bays. Imho there's a strong hint on a very limited use of the A-4/torp as a horizontal bomber. At the right-hand side of the cabin the instruments for the torpedo-settings had to be build in. There are a few pictures showing torpedo-bomber crew members at work right at the place where usually the instruments for bomb-spacing etc were placed. Since the Ju-88 cabin was badly cramped I suspect the torpedo-conversion enforced to remove (some/all?) instruments for precise horizontal bombing. Maybe the option to mount 50-kg-bombs internally remained? To drop them in fighter-bomber style or over-the-thumb for areal bombing?

German bomber sorties are a minor, but interesting aspect of D-Day. Finding suitable Luftwaffe bombers to build up an Asset Pack for Normandy must have been a problem. If you need them flying during daylight at least. Checking some of my books dealing with Luftwaffe-units specialized on maritime warfare it was difficult to find hints on bomber operations during daytime at all. The only kind of large-scale bomber-operations during daylight wasn't done by bombers. But by Ju-88-destroyer planes from ZG1. A re-named group of former long-range fighters from KG 40. Build up for maritime long-range patrols over the Biscay against Coastal Commands anti-submarine bombers. Mainly on June 7th and June 10th the Ju-88 C-6 were butchered South of the invasion area. (Goss, 1997, pp 238). After that disaster the already battered group was disbanded and the remaining crews were sent to night-fighter units. (btw - Luftwaffe commanders exactly knew what would happen to twin-engines fighters when confronted with allied single-engined fighters. After the desperate sorties against US-bomber-formations in 1943 this was common knowledge. Sending crews flying Ju-88 into the invasion-area during daylight (twice!) was a suicide-order. A war-crime, too). All the reports by torpedo-bombers (KG 26 plus some by former KG 77) start at "last daylight" or "early night". The reports given by Schmidt 1999 (pp 394) in are written in contemporary propaganda style and can't be trusted, but the fighting it happened at night. Diemer 2010 is memoir by a torpedo-bomber-pilot (pp 206), at night again. Some more details are given by Thiele 2004 (pp 68) - at night mostly. Are there reports by allied daylight-fighters shooting down Ju-88-torpedo-bombers? So afaik the Luftwaffe bombers flew their sorties at night, rarely at twilight maybe. The main effort soon went into aerial mine-warfare (Neitzel 1995 pp 221) Until 26th of July 4400 mines were dropped, with little effect. Most of the mines used fuses allied mine-sweepers easily were able to deal with. Dropping 4400 mines needed 2200 medium bomber sorties at minimum - an average of 40 sorties for 50 nights! A lot of bomber operations in an area with 100% enemy air superiority. I wasn't aware of the high numbers, there's reason to dig deeper. Sources: Goss, Chris (2001): Bloody Biscay - The history of V Gruppe / Kampfgeschwader 40. The story of the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit, V Gruppe/Kampfgeschwader 40, and its adversaries 1942-1944. Manchester: Crécy. Schmidt, Rudi (1999): Achtung - Torpedos los! Erlangen: K. Müller. Diemer, Bodo (2010): Überlebenschance gleich Null. Aachen: Helios Thiele, Harold (2004): Luftwaffe aerial torpedo aircraft and operations in World War Two. Crowborough: Hikoki. Neitzel, Sönke (1995): Der Einsatz der deutschen Luftwaffe über dem Atlantik und der Nordsee 1939 - 1945. Bonn: Bernard & Graefe.

You point on it - to build just this rare sub-model of the Luftwaffe's work-horse is another mystery. Fog of war!

The Ju-88 modelled in DCS is a quite significant conversion of the Ju-88 A4. From 1942 on the standard-bomber model A-4 was re-equipped using a large kit into a Ju-88 A4/torp. This conversion changed the inner under-wing-bomb-racks, deleted the outer ones and the dive-brakes were removed, too. That bulb on the right hand side of the cabin contained the mechanically driven shafts for manipulating torpedo-settings in flight. After the conversion the options for dropping bombs were limited by the options of the heavy-duty bomb-racks type PVC1006B. According to the part of the Ju-88-handbook dealing with that topic (12 D3 - page 2) there were just one of five types of bombs suitable for that rack: - two types of German aerial mines, LMA-III and LMB-III - three heavy bombs PC-1000, SC-1000 and SC-500 I very much suspect after the torp-conversion there was no option to use the inner bomb bays, too. One bay was blocked by the shafts to the left-hand torpedo anyhow. In 1943/44 a small number of specialized Ju-88 A-17 were build. A torpedo-bomber by factory based on the A-4/torp. But without that chin-gondola and cabin-hood was a late model with one MG-131 in the upper stand. PS: there was an option to carry a 600-Litre-drop-tank on one rack. Both inner bomb-bays often were equipped with additional fuel-tanks, too. So the standard-range of narrow 1000 km with two torpedos (type LT F-5b or LT F-5w) was enhanced to 1600 km using one torpedo and a drop-tank.

Very good - the speech was held by this guy: https://www.calum-douglas.com/ and that's the book https://www.calum-douglas.com/current-book-the-secret-horsepower-race/ It's very well written and will enjoy engineers as historians. A milestone in WW2-aviation literature.

This film tells another story, worth the time: The origins of ARM

Aircraft performance Takeoff weight: - normal (including 2xR-27R + 2xR-73, 5270 kg fuel), kg 23,430 - maximum, kg 33,000 Maximum landing weight, kg 24,500 Landing weight limit, kg 26,000 Maximum internal fuel, kg 9,500 Maximum ordnance, kg - Air-To-Air 3,200 - Air-To-Ground 6,500 Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), m 17,000 Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 1,300 Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 2.17 G-limit (operational) 8.5 Maximum flight range (with missiles 2xR-27R, 2xR-73 launched at half distance): - at sea level, km 1,000 - at height, km 3,000 source: DCS Su-33 Flanker D Flight Manual, p. 48 (pdf last edited 2021 02 07) https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/documentation/Su33_manual_en/

Check https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/252239-fw-190-d-9-dora-engine-bug/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4537091 for details. @NineLine: no offence intended, just a hint. It would be fine to hear a problem by the engine sound itself. And to read an advice in the manual how each kind of engine will react on ignoring the upper limits. The sudden jam is fixed and a new water-cooling system coming up: Thank you. (Meanwhile happy hunting with a fast bird)

Really? The D-9 now does 75 min with 100% thrust - not ok according to the sources. Same for the (maybe, who knows for sure?) missing warm-up time: no rough running, no power loss, no hint on problems at all. Just a sudden "bang" and the engine is dead and frozen. Imho not ok for a simulation.