Bozon

Low tire friction can also explain the tendencies to slide sideways during takeoff runs - this is not the usual tail dragger swing.

Anyone else feels that the Mosquito handles like a drift car on the ground and like a Lancaster in the air? On the ground I am drifting in sideways power slides like its Tokyo drift and when the power is on and rolling down the lanes every touch of the breaks brings the tail up, even at ridiculously low speeds. In the air the Mosquito has crazy yaw after takeoff and then with a bit of speed is a pig in maneuvering - no control authority in all axes. It is very far from what it was when EA started, worse in every way. Maybe this is how it should be, maybe my stick setup is somehow FUBAR, I dunno. I was unable to play for a while so I am not sure if this happened before or after the Christmas patch. How does your Mosquito handle lately?

I like most males carry 2 or more balls, so that does count as “some”. I am also a huge Mirage III fan! Mirage 2000 is too modern for me, so the F-1 is as close as I can get. This is why I care about its aesthetics - I want my Mirage lean and mean looking!

Is the air-refuel tube removable or is it a fixed feature of a specific variant? In the vid it seems that some has it and some don’t, but I can’t tell the difference between the variants (I think it ruins the looks of the plane, it is much prettier without it).

The Mirage F.1 will be the most advanced fighter with respect to the current roster. Red will not have anything to equal it until Razbam’s Mig-23 arrives. If only we had Mirage IIIc… it was the historical enemy of the Mig 17/19/21. Mirage III, ahhhh, one can still dream… maybe Aerges will do that after the F.1 … and Augragan, Mystere IV, Super Mystere, will be awesome on the cold war servers too. Dassault was producing great planes one after the other back then. Too bad none of these are on the roadmap.

Performance and handling wise, the D22/23 would be slightly better than the bubble top D30/40. By “slightly” I means that you would have to be very familiar with them to feel the difference.

E had by far the most A2A kills, more than all the other variants combined - just not with the USAF.

“Skin” is not the best word to describe it - more like “shell”. When people think of a wooden plane, most imagine something like a wooden frame covered with fabric or thin playwood, WWI bi-plane era style - That is not like the mosquito at all. The thick shell/skin of the mosquito was responsible for a considerable fraction of the structural strength and rigidness. This allowed DH to use less struts and bulkheads inside the structure (both fuselage and wings) and freed space for equipment.

It is an organic plane. If you don’t tend to it and trim it regularly all kinds of things sprout out of it.

Thanks @TLTeo I did not know that F1 was derived from a variable wing design - that does explain a lot in how the F1 looks. Trying to imagine it with such a wing, it must have been very similar looking to the Mig-23. So we can call Mirage F1 a 3.5 generation fighter. That was unfortunate to these planes (F1 and Mig-23 for example) that within just a couple of years the leap to gen 4 fighters made them obsolete. The Mig-23 was proved to be significantly inferior to the F-16A and F-15 over Lebanon in 1982.

The Mirage F1 always struck me as the oddball in the Dassault lineage. Out of the Mystere IV, Super Mystere, Mirage III, Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, Rafael, it is the least “pretty” one - not that it is ugly, but the others are exceptionally pretty. In terms of design, it is easy to see its Mirage III ancestry though it underwent significant modifications - actually, it looks like someone took apart a Mirage III and then tried to put it back together without the instructions… Which is fine, but then the Mirage 2000 went back to the basic Mirage III shape. Why is that? In terms of performance I read it was a straight upgrade from the Mirage III in pretty much every way. I alway thought of it as the contemporary of the F-4 Phantom, but it is actually closer to the F-14/15 years. Could it compete with them? Or the F-16A? TL;DR 1. Why did Dassault divert from the delta without horizontal tail in the F1 and then reverted back to the pure delta in the M2000? 2. Is the F1 the peer of the early F14/F15, or is it the last of the previous generation fighters (basically an odd looking Mirage III on steroids)?

If anything, DCS has made me appreciate the brilliant design of the FW-190. Its cockpit design was decades ahead of contemporary fighters. Looks so clean and modern, and this plus the automated engine control really frees the pilot to concentrate on the mission rather than operating and monitoring stuff in the cockpit. Hey, but we like our mosquito just the way it was - I am sure that a true Brit in 1943 could have looked at the cockpit and say in a posh accent from under his mustache “I say, thank god for good old British engineering, this makes perfect sense to me!”.

The whole Mosquito cockpit looks like it has been designed by a committee. Come on, is that a proper place for the rudder trimmer? Oh, we forgot the radiator intake switches… hmm there a free spot on top of the instrument panel infornt of the navigator - perfect! He won’t be looking forward very much anyway. The switch to turn in the gunsight? Lets put it on the navigator side, because navigators like to mess with the gun sight. Flaps and undercarriage levers? Hmm… lets put the on the ceiling.. no no, better idea lets put them between the pilot and navigator - this will give the cockpit some airliner vibes, the pilots will love it! Oh dear, we forget to place the ailerons trimmer - where will it go? Next to the pilot’s right ankle of course! Perfect location!

The Typhoon didn’t do that bad against enemy fighters. They ended up with 246 kills (Tempests had 239) and a handful of aces (5+ of the kills in the Typh, many more “mixed” types aces), according to Osprey’s “Typhoon and Tempest aces of WWII”. I didn’t calculate their K/D against the Luftwaffe fighters, and don’t recall seeing this number, so it’s difficult to compare to other allied fighters. The Spit is the better fighter, but that means little when they can’t catch those 190A’s running across the channel.

@wernst I can’t see the effect you are describing. When you turn to align the plane with the runway and stop, the tailwheel stays at the last angle - on a tight turn this could be a very large angle, closer to 90 degrees than to 0. If you start the takeoff run from this position, the first thing that will happen is that the tail will continue to turn in the direction it did just before you stopped. You will start your run already swinging from side to side. To prevent this, what you are supposed to do is to continue straight (not touching the breaks) for a few meters after you aligned yourself with the runway and the break to a stop with even pedals (so no diff. braking at the last moment). The you end up ready fir t/o with the tail wheel aligned. Personally, I start the t/o run by gently rolling down the runway steering with the breaks and increasing power gradually as I see that the plane keeps a straight course. Very quickly the rudder starts to respond and then I can go full power. It might not be the shortest possible t/o run, but it is very easy.

Why do all these planes roll quicker to the right in the 80s test? It should be the other way around - the props are turning clock-wise from the pilot’s perspective, so the engine torque is helping to roll the plane to the “left”. edit: There must be a printing error - the order of left/right data is reversed between the 180 and 360 deg roll tables.

@NineLine What we ask for is an explanation why such a delay should exist, while no other warbird or otherwise has this. What is this modeling choice based on? If this is physically correct then so be it and we accept it - happily even, because we want correct modeling as much as possible. We just can’t see the (real world physics) reason for this delay to exist, so either we are missing something, or that this is incorrect. p.s., The 303 mg’s also have a delay, but it seems shorter. For both I can easily press fire and release soon enough so no bullet is fired. This does not make sense for an electro-pneumatic trigger, unless somebody thinks that it takes a long time for the pneumatic piston to pull the mechanical trigger and that I can stop it half way through the action.

If that were the case it would have affected all planes in the game. This delay exists only in the mosquito, which has the same guns and a similar firing mechanism as the Spitfire.

Testing the FB.VI deck speed at +18 boost, 50 feet altitude, closed radiators, the ASI pegs at 340 mph. Checking on the F10 screen, it shows 296 knots, which is 340 mph. This is in reasonable agreement with the figures found in performance trials of Mosquitoes HJ679 and HX809: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hj679-dh.pdf http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/hx809.pdf HJ679 was set up close to our configuration, with multi exhaust stubs and no flame dampers shrouds. However, the later report of HX809 makes a clear point (section 5) that HJ679 was under performing. In fact, the above HJ679 report is a second trial after the results of the 1st one were deemed suspicious. HX809 in its trial achieved similar speeds to HJ679 in spite of being equipped with saxophone ducts and flame dampers shrouds. The HX809 report points to another trial of DK290: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf where the speed loss from the saxophone dusts and shrouds was measured compared to multi-stubs exhausts. They found about 15 mph difference at low altitudes (MS gear). Now, DK290 is a B.IV model, but that should not make a big difference to the effect of the different exhausts. The 15 mph difference was also measured at only +9 boost. I would expect an even greater difference at +18 boost where the engine is pushing a even greater mass of air for the same RPM. Unfortunately, I am not familiar of any document or trial that tested an FB.VI at +18 boost with multi-stubs ejectors that is not HJ679. All we can do is try to extrapolate from the results of HX809. Thus, if we take their 337 mph ASI, and use the DK290 trial to add a +15 mph as a lower limit, we get expected deck speed for out FB.VI of 352 mph ASI. Now for TAS, HJ809 reports -4.5 mph correction from ASI, and on the other hand the speed loss from the saxohpone duct & shoulds is probably a couple of mph greater at +18 boost, thus we expect TAS to still be around the 350 mph. Our FB.VI is too slow on the deck.

The delay is either correct or incorrect: If correct, as much as I find this hard to believe, then this is how it should work, not as an option. If incorrect, then fix it and be done with this.

Did ED change something that affects elevator authority in the last patch? The mosquito feels different - much less authority in the elevator, it just can't command its nose around like it did before, at least this is how it feels to me.

Oh wow, I didn’t realize that you are building it. Hat off to you, this looks great

Krupi, the “up” button is not to put the lever in the up position - it is to move the lever position one notch up from its current state - which ever it happens to be. Call it the “shift upwards” button, and the other “shift downwards” button.

Thank you. Could not have said it better.

It is simple with 2 buttons/hat switch states - one lowers the lever one notch from its current position and the other moves one notch up. The is no issue with the level jumping to the neutral position. We already have this and it works fine for me - the issue is the damn latch that I must assign another button for, and click it before I click the “down one position” button to start lowering the flaps. Away with the latch I say! When I click “down” one flap level position I was it to also open the latch automatically.