Bozon

The fuel selectors are reachable from the pilot seat when your neutral head position is centered on the gun sight - which you switch to be default when you turn on the gun sight. The centered position is convenient for a few other things, such as looking at the slip/bank indicator that is under the gun sight (lean to the right), and reaching the bombs panel. However, for the fuel selectors I do advise to set key/button binds for them since you may want to operate them during “busy” parts of the flight - e.g, when entering air combat I normally switch to the main tanks.

I see. Thanks.

I agree that P-38 is the obvious choice for the next twin, and the one likely to bring the most sales. Then we need something from the evil side. BF-110 I’d love to have in the future, but it does not fit well with our current roster. Me-410 will be a good attack plane and an interesting plane to fly with a lots of armament options. My vote however will go to a Ju-88 attack variant. A Beaufighter will be an instant buy for me. I love this plane - the ugly duckling that somehow was always at the right place at the right time, a one that ended up being greater than the sum of its (Beaufort bomber) parts. Come on, two Hercules radials, torpedoes, rockets, 4 Hispanos… just don’t make it a Merlin variant because it’s just ain't right - Hercules or bust!

I’d sure buy a Typhoon module. If not a module, then an AI one will be fun. Goes well with our Spit IX and Mossie FB.VI.

Will the Mosquito be included in the missions at some point?

Hi Krupi, there was a bit of a discussion about this with important information from Robi-wan that looked at 2nd TAF mosquito squadron logs. I found only one mention in “Mosquito” by Sharp and Bowyer of mosquitoes using rockets against ground targets. The conclusion we reached was that these were experimental sorties and that 2nd TAF FB.VI hardly ever used rockets. The reason is most likely related to the missions division between Mossies and the single engine fighter-bombers - the Typhoons and American FBs were doing most of the work during the day and mosquitoes operated mostly at night. The single engine FB could not effectively operate at night, while the Mossies could, and during the day the Mossie did not have any special advantage over the single engine FB - so this division makes tactical sense. At night, as you mentioned, rockets are blinding the pilot and so bombs were preferable. Coastal command FB.VIs were operating during daylight and thus loved the rockets.

@Skewgear thanks for the info! This fills many of the knowledge gaps I had when trying to guess how DCS modeled the Mosquito Hispanos. ED, @BIGNEWY or whoever reads the boards, please look into this again and if the conclusion is still “correct as is” then fine, but please give us a short explanation of how the Mosquito cannons work and the root cause of the firing delay. Beyond fixing or not fixing the early access, we really want to learn.Thanks.

OK, that is not too bad. The bay bombs stagger seems very short.

I haven’t tested this yet since the patch - so now bomb release is staggered even for the wing bombs? If so is BAD as it will scatter the bombs more.

That is effective when you dump a large number of bombs on an area, not two or four of them - today this is done with cluster munitions. The bombs need to keep exploding occasionally to maintain the effect. With that few, the enemy will not even know that there are delayed bombs in the area and the effect is lost. Fuses of more than a couple of seconds are not effective against ground troops and vehicles that will tend to scatter immediately.

What is the point in using delays that are a few days long?

I don’t know if 11 seconds was a standard. It seems to be the delay the used in a few well know raids where a number of aircraft dropped bombs on structures. I suspect that in airstrikes on ground forces a shorter fuse was used.

The AI Anton is can’t do much against the Mosquito, unless you let it shoot you in the face. Its method of survival is running me out of 20mm ammunition by absorbing a huge amount of hits and still flying - I can only kill it from dead 6 by starting a fire. From other angles it is possible to remove a wing to end the fight. The 303 machine guns without the cannons don’t do anything to the AI. I pour a huge number of bullets into the engine section and nothing happens. The Mosquito easily out turns the Anton and can hang with it in a climb. A human will use more rolls, or dive away and run, but the AI don’t use the Anton this way.

Yes! We need more Frenchy Israeli air-force Dassault planes! Super-Mystere B2 is the contemporary of the Mig-19 (and F-100 Super Saber) as early super sonic fighters. The Mig-17 probably belongs with this bunch too. Myster IV is a match to the F-86 Sabre and the Mig-15. Israeli tests against captured/defected Mig-15s concluded that the Mystere IV was generally better at low altitudes while Mig-15 had the advantage up high. Mirage IIIcj is the match to the Mig-21. Mirage III mauled the Mig-19 pretty bad, so they are clearly a generation apart. Please bring the Mirage IIIcj, Super-Myster B2, and Mystere IV to DCS! Then we can discuss the cute Ouragane to the 50s roster.

In case of a war against a modern power S-300/400 and other similar large SAMs will be fighting for their own lives at the start of the war. They will be a high priority target and be constantly suppressed by EW and attacked by drones, roving munitions, cruise missiles, or highly accurate ballistic missiles, again and again until destroyed - I would NOT want to serve in a S-300 unit when a war starts… One of the major things that limited the use of low flying were radar guided AAA - these are deadly to planes trying to hide from SAMs over the front - for all the hype about SAMs, more planes fall to AAA than to SAMs. The big SAMs are relatively easy to suppress in a local region and thus allow operations from altitude over the front. Flying low is still a thing for deep penetrations through relatively sparsely defended (by AAA) regions.

This switch is obviously used to turn on the little yellow light.

I find that for piloting, the shifted “gun sight” position give me better view of the instruments and easier access to the relevant controls/switches than the default pilot position - e.g., slip/turn indicator is very hard to see from the default “port side” head position, while from the gun-sight position it is just a slight lean to the right to view it. I just pilot the plane from this position all the time. Some switches/instruments can only be accessed from the observer’s seat. I highly recommend binding the two fuel switches to some convenient keys/buttons - you will want to be able to quickly switch inner/outboard tanks while busy with piloting. Most of the other “starboard seat” operations can be done at leisure with the mouse.

There is no performance data that I am aware of for our exact configuration. HJ679 was tested with drop tanks on, and was likely a lemon regarding its performance, as stated in the later HX809 report. HX809 was equipped with the saxophone ducts covered by flame dampeners - this is a highly unfavorable configuration as the saxophone ducts were slower than the short multi-stubs that we have, and the flame dampeners on top of that had a significant negative effect on speed. The HX809 report states that other tests (with B.IV model, also available from the same website) indicated 15 mph difference of max speed between the exhausts configurations with M.S. gear and at +9 boost - the difference at +18 boost should be even greater! Link to the B.IV exhaust systems comparison: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mosquito/dk290-b.pdf From this comes the common estimate that for the optimal configuration (short stubs exhausts, no flame dampeners, no drop tanks) FB.VI should do 350 mph at +18 boost 0 altitude - Though no explicit test data for this specific condition can be found (AFAIK).

Note that HJ679 test was done with wing tanks.

50% fuel, closed radiators, no bombs, std atmosphere. Could not get it to 340 mph over the water at 18 boost. I started at 330 mph after a shallow dive, so I wouldn’t cook the engines before getting up to speed. Just under 340 on the dial - maybe with better trim I could have made it to 340. That’s pretty slow. Our FB.VI in clean configuration should do around 350 mph on the deck.

Jeep. Because there is no kill like an overkill.

You are not supposed to breach the walls with naplam!

@wernst I was jesting of course. I understood your intention. I also like to manually click on levers and switches in the cockpit, and for startup I jump into the starboard seat, turn around and mess with the fuel and radio. I personally don’t need custom views for that specifically. During flight I am too busy, so I use the keyboard for quick blind tank switching - just the two valves, the others you don’t need to operate in a hurry. Maybe the external tanks compression? I haven’t used drop tank much yet. I fully support your request for custom views from the observer’s seat. I would like to set one for the R/T radios because track-ir pointing is less accurate at large rotation angles (non linear calibration curves).

Assign keyboard keys to control the fuel valves and never look back. Literally and metaphorically.

Custom views.