Yoda967

Ah! Thanks. It surprises me to see the procedure in the cockpit overview. I was looking for it under Weapons & Stores: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/stores/overview.html Thanks!!

Unless I missed something, there doesn't seem to be anything in the manual yet about how to jettison the drop tanks. Had to go to the RW F-4E manual to figure it out. Having a blast getting to know the Brick. Thanks, Heatblur, and everyone who's pitched in with their RW expertise!

You're right...and my apologies. I misunderstood what you wrote.

I know you're correct on your first point. I've read several books by Spitfire pilots who mention the artificial horizon tumbling during a dog fight. Over in the Spitfire forum, it's been confirmed that gyro drift is modeled. Gyros do indeed drift during maneuvers, but they don't restore their position after the aircraft returns to level flight. That's the purpose of the adjustment knob on the DG...you check it periodically for agreement with the magnetic compass and adjust the DG to match.

@RyanR, I think movies and television, in their drive to deliver cinematic spectacle, have done us a disservice. The first episode of "Masters of the Air" shows the wing of B-17s launching into cloudy skies and trying to form up in full IFR. They just weren't equipped for that...even under purely visual conditions, it took precise flying, a good stopwatch, and an active participation by the entire crew to watch for other aircraft. Rhubarb missions and later Rodeos were expected to be flown below any overcast so that pilots could navigate visually by dead reckoning. The was a system in Britain called "Darky" that provided a radio beam for bombers returning in darkness to follow, but it included the use of light beacons and procedural voice control as the bombers approached their landing fields.

It's completely absent in DCS on the WWII maps because it wasn't available in the WWII aircraft currently in DCS. There is no way to see GPS or VORs or ILSs in the Spitfire cockpit. Or the P-47. Or the Mustang. Because it simply didn't exist in the 1940s. If you got lost, you called on the homing frequency assigned, and you hoped somebody heard you. (What does work is there because DCS is a sandbox, so it benefits the aircraft that can use it.) I get it. You're used to the tools at your disposal in modern aircraft. Me, too. Dead reckoning is hard work. That's just the way it was. It takes practice, but it's really satisfying when you can hand-fly an hour and forty-five minute round-robin from Detling or High Halden across the channel and back using only a compass and your eyeballs. I totally recommend it!

Ryan, The state of the technology at the time was that radio navigation required longer range and therefore lower frequencies...thus larger, heavier radios. Radio navigation was mainly handled from the ground in the early 1940s, except for larger aircraft. Chuck's guide for the Mosquito gives a detailed explanation of how this is simulated in the DCS Mosquito. Fighters, though, relied on manned ground stations which could be called on a voice channel. The operator on the ground would reply with a request for a long transmission from the aircraft, and use direction finding to determine the bearing. With that determined, they could direct the aicraft to fly a heading until seeing the airfield, or they could coordinate with other D/F facilities by landline and then provide a vector. Edit: Aircraft would be assigned a "homing" frequency, which would be tuned by ground crews before each mission into one of the four available for selection in the cockpit. A deep dive into RAF procedures for this (which also applied to the USAAF) show them to be pretty elaborate and they constantly worked to improve. Otherwise, a fighter pilot had to rely on visual ground references, and I recommend reading Geoffrey Wellum's book "First Light" which contains a harrowing experience he had in full IFR while in a Spitfire.

@fjacobsen, "Aim and hoot the M4" is the best typo ever.

It's hard to believe that that Spitfire spent 45+ years buried in the sand on a French beach.

Yes. I am seeing the same thing with the gun emplacements at Chailey.

Seeing a Duxford airshow was high on my list of things to do when I took my current work assignment in London. That first Battle of Britain airshow in September '18 was mind-blowing...there were 21 Spits in formation, plus a Mk I doing aerobatics at the same time. I stood by the fence and jumped up and down with excitement, which still gives my wife the giggles. I'm glad you got to experience Duxford too, Jeffrey. It's a special place.

Authentikit is reportedly working with Flying Iron Simulations on an F6F throttle.

The jet defaults to Zulu time on the HUD and local time on the IFEI (which also displays fuel state and engine status). To set local time on the HUD, go to the HSI on one of your MFDs or the AMPCD. Press PB17 (lower row of push buttons, second from the right) to box TIMEUFC. On the Up Front Controller press the bottom OSB to select LTOD with a colon. Now, when the aircraft is airborne, the HUD will display local time. On the IFEI, local time is the default setting, but you can toggle between local and Zulu time by pressing the "zone" button.

I've met both, too. I'd like to think I was one of the good ones. I have certainly experienced the feeling of not knowing where to start in DCS. You're absolutely right about the learning curve; I've been a flight simmer since the mid-80s, and it's still pretty steep. As you've discovered, though, you just keep plugging away at stuff as it comes up. I am curious about what you mean when you describe a campaign as "for beginners" vs. one "to keep the pros engaged." I imagine you mean more player assists for beginner-level campaigns and more intense tactical situations for pro/varsity-level campaigns. Do I understand that correctly? (Not saying either one is preferable, just asking the question for clarity.)

@Raisuli, Embarrass yourself? As a Navy instructor, I used to tell my trainees that mistakes are where the learning happens. And yeah, I know *you* have been around with DCS enough to be able to handle yourself well, but your post raises questions that a lot of folks new to the sim are asking...some of my answer was directed at them. (And as with any advice, take what you want and disregard the parts that don't feel right to you.) Grab a campaign and go to it, man.

@Raisuli, @Mistermann puts up some great advice, and I would add that if you're not feeling comfortable in the Hornet yet, make yourself some very simple missions that let you focus on a single task (like AAR or Case I or Case III recoveries). The simpler your practice, the better. Isolate the task, and until you've achieved consistent success (80% or better), don't try to do it inside a full mission. When folks new to the Hornet ask about how to land on the carrier, I always point them to a fixed runway first and tell them to practice landings in the proper configuration with the runway touchdown markers as their aim point. When they can hit the touchdown markers on centerline every time, they're ready to try a landing on the boat. The very first DLC campaign mission I ever flew was the first mission of Groundpounder Sims' FIWOS, which calls for you to approach a SAM site at below 500 feet and execute a pop-up attack. I'm not an F-16 guy...it's a nice jet, but I'm all Navy and the Hornet is my go to. Still, I shacked that Fan Song like a pro. (And then I blew the landing after pressing a bad approach instead of going around.) Point is: just get a campaign from one of the good developers and work your way through. If that's too intimidating (and I get it), then read the first mission briefing, break down what will be expected of you, and create a practice mission for each mission task you expect. Just do it. You're as safe as chairs.

If you're looking for carrier-based F/A-18 missions, try the Raven One campaigns by Baltic Dragon. If you don't particularly want to fly from a carrier, then Operation Cerberus North by Chillng is fantastic. The documentation in Cerberus North is a work of art, with almost 100 pages of supporting docs in addition to a briefing doc for each mission. All three campaigns have strong stories, which add immensely to the immersion.

This.

Having been a CIWS tech during its earliest days in the fleet, I can attest to this being the mindset at the time. As a former CIWS instructor, I can say that no, they do not have a "mind of their own", they operate exactly how they were designed to (barring a failure -- more about that in a moment). The biggest operational problem with them was that many COs did not understand them. I will add that in my experience, military decision-makers tend to be risk-averse, especially when there are systems involved that are poorly understood. That was most certainly the case in the 80s, and made the bogus "meaning" of the acronym ("Captain, It Won't Shoot") that much more insulting to those of us who maintained and operated it. In STARK's case, the CIWS was not operating because they were running electrical power-affecting engineering drills at the time. According to an old CO of mine who had commanded an FFG in the Gulf during the Iran/Iraq War, it was commonplace for Iraqi F-1s to overfly US warships on their way to their targets. It may seem hard to believe now, but Iraq was considered an ally at the time, so such overflights were accepted, even if they weren't particularly comfortable. The JARRETT/MISSOURI friendly-fire incident didn't do much to assuage concerns. Eventually, the Navy developed doctrine that was effective in preventing issues like these, which is why we're not talking about similar incidents in the last 30-odd years. Now, a sea-story involving a failure: This happened during a firing exercise being conducted to impress some distinguished visitors with the power of our Phalanx systems. I was at the local control panel, and would be firing the gun from my position after being cleared by the skipper. The procedure was 1) receive clearance while gun was in stowed position, 2) energize the gun mount and move it to the pre-assigned firing bearing off the port beam at 45 degrees elevation, 3) fire a 100-round burst. What happened was: 1) I received clearance to fire, 2) I energized the gun and set it to move to the firing bearing and elevation, 3) the rate integrating gyro failed, causing the gun to slew to the physical stops aft of the port beam at 45 degrees elevation -- which left the visitors and the skipper in his whites standing on the port bridgewing staring directly into the muzzle of the gun and diving for the deck, and 4) yours truly recognizing the error and powering the mount down where it was. (It is worth noting that the PHYSICAL mount stops are outside the ELECTRICAL firing circuit stops. The gun was not going to fire because the firing circuit gets broken if the gun is pointed at any part of the ship's structure. I shut it down because the gun hadn't gone where I expected it to.) As @Northstar98 rightly points out, RL screen formations look nothing like the close-in stuff you typically see in DCS missions and cinematics, though this is not entirely because of CIWS. It's mostly a safety of navigation issue. Look up the MELBOURNE/EVANS incident, in which an Aussie carrier collided with a US destroyer. CO's Standing Orders on the cruiser I served in were to remain at a safe distance from the carrier at all times (1 mile if astern of the carrier, 2 miles if abeam of the carrier, 3 miles if ahead of the carrier), going closer only with the CO's express permission, such as taking station as CV Shotgun or plane guard. The CO who wrote those orders went on to be a Carrier Group commander and after a destroyer maneuvered too close to the carrier, he summoned the destroyer's CO to the carrier and fired him on the spot.

Thanks, algherghezghez and Reflected. I forgot that it was an MT thing and spent the afternoon racking my brain because I couldn't get the mission to fail. Naturally, I wasn't testing in MT (trying to cut a corner).

@Reflected has talked about this because it's also happening in his campaigns, as well, so maybe he can chime in with the symptoms he's aware of. I've noticed it in my mission development, too. What I'm seeing is that once an AI aircraft begins a follow task, it will continue until the aircraft being followed lands or is destroyed. DCS appears to be ignoring the Last Waypoint setting within the Follow command, and it will also not respond to a triggered Switch Waypoint task. Switch Waypoint appears to be working prior to any Follow command. I'll add a track file later today.

Also, spend the time to know how the jet flies in the landing configuration before trying to land on the carrier. You'll save yourself a lot of frustration by practicing at an airfield until you can consistently touch down on a specific runway marking every time. Good luck!

@Rolds A workaround: When you put together an AAR training mission in the ME (or edit one), reduce your Hornet's internal fuel by 2,200 lbs for each external tank. The Hornet's external tanks feed its internals, and they'll transfer their fuel fairly quickly if the jet's internal tanks have room.

Did two deployments to the Gulf. The "ground beef" we got from local suppliers was orange. Tasted okay, but even so, we called them "camel burgers".

@Fuujin To add to what @Dragon1-1 has said, while you might be able to penetrate the defenses of a CSG, simply penetrating the defenses is by no means a guarantee of sinking even the escorts. DCS' damage modelling for naval units is incomplete. For a good sense of what a carrier could withstand in WWII, I recommend researching USS FRANKLIN (CV-13). She was roughly a third of a modern carrier's tonnage, and lacked the modern design elements of modern-day warships, yet she withstood more than 3 1/2 hours of secondary explosions as her own ammunition and aircraft fuel supplies cooked off...more than 55 secondaries. She still returned to San Francisco under her own power from the coast of Japan. You cannot discount the value of the crew's damage control efforts. I'd expect a modern US carrier to be still more survivable. I recommend taking a look at the articles and scenarios presented at https://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/. Their Naval Sitrep magazine is a treasure trove of solid, technical and tactical detail.