Bozon

To: “DCS: Mosquito FB.VI” Include the model designation so it is in the same format as the Spitfire forum section. I am sorry, but my OCD makes my eye twitch when I see the current section title next to the titles of the other DCS models forum sections... Unless this section covers the NF.XXX, FB.XVIII, B.XVI too... nudge nudge wink wink

Best written WWII pilot autobiography I have read - by a wide margin. Both Sid the pilot and Dave McIntosh had a good dose of self humor and Dave is brutally honest about his deeds and feelings (mostly terror...).

@Mogster, you are confusing different speed measurements. The absolute top speed of FB.VI 386 mph, which is achieved around 23,000 feet was indeed low even for a mid 1943 plane. However, FB.VIs rarely operated above 10,000 feet, therefore this absolute top speed is completely irrelevant. After a short production run with Merlin 23 engines, FB.VI were fitted with Merlin 25 engines that are optimized for low altitudes. Two stage compressors were not needed under 10,000 feet and even the high speed gear was rarely needed (switch from low to high gear is at around 12,000). We don’t have a good test for sea level speed with Merlin 25s, short exhaust stubs and no flame shrouds - various people attempted to estimate the sea level speed at these conditions (130 fuel) and came up with numbers in the range 350-360 mph. Comparative tests by the RAF resulted in FB.VI being significantly faster than any Spitfire at sea level and slightly faster than Griffon powered Spit Mk.XII which was the fastest spit on the deck. The FB.VI was the fastest mosquito at sea level and that is where it operated. PR models were the fastest in terms of max speeds at ~30,000 feet because that is where they operated. NF (night fighter) mosquitoes were optimized to operate around 20,000 feet. B (bomber) variants were optimized for speed with a full bomb load - for this reason the engines are mounted a little forward than in the NF and FB variants and this is a little less optimal when testing the max speed with an empty bomb bay. De Havilland were meticulous in optimizing for a mission profile, not for the sales brochure figures. The empty weight of FB.VI was heavier than the other variants (except FB.XVIII tse-tse) because of added armor that the PR and B models completely lacked and NF had less of, and the cannons and MGs that PR and B also completely lacked.

Mosquitoes had a tubular hatch at the canopy above the navigator through which he would fire colored flares with a Very pistol. Mosquito formations used these for signaling and coordination, in the case of FB.VI the Very flares saw a lot of use with coastal command anti shipping raids. It would be great if we could fire signaling flares, not unlike the BF.109 in the game. For single players it would also be great if you could order your wingman, or formations you command to fire a flare for you to find them more easily.

The only jets that will be day 1 buy for me are Mirage III and F4 Phantom (E please!). Other 60s 70s fighters are place holders for the above two.

Well this kite is about more than just bombing. However, it is not a dive bomber and its style of delivery is from low altitudes and at shallow dives - just the recipe for bombing yourself to pieces if your bombs are not delayed.

Things I want my AI alligator to do: 1. Read to me number of gallons total fuel remaining. 2. Call out heading and range to a way point. 3. Fire a colored Very flare through the tube in the canopy above. 4. Hold the stick for me while I take a whiz in a plastic bag (that’s an actual thing). Comes to think of it, it is better that I hold the mossie stick which I am better trained to use and the navigator holds and aims “my stick”, which he should be able to handle just as expertly as I can. 5. Make tea. 6. Operate Gee if that is ever implemented. edit: oh, and he should definitely have a cockney accent!

@Fri13, I and I suspect that the OP as well are not talking about spotting a dot 12 km away - I am talking about 2 km away. The nice graph you are showing is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. Yes, I flew in planes and helicopters from Jet Rangers to F-16D and I know how easy it is to lose a plane at a distance - but at 2 km it is enough to know the quadrant and you can re acquire the other plane at will. Part of the issue in the game is that I have to trade angular resolution with field of view - if I zoom in enough so that the target has a shape rather than a tiny cluster of pixels, then I have to scan the skies looking through a straw. If I keep some wider FOV then planes don’t look like planes - I basically have to spot an irregularity in the background pixels. This is nothing like realism. I wonder if it is easier on a 1440 screen vs. 1080 that I currently use.

You are not the only one. I sometimes can’t spot my wingman even though I know he is there and I am looking just about straight at him. The odd thing is that on youtube flicks that people post I can see their opponents better than what I see in my game. I also played other WWII sim/games with icons off and there the problem was not as severe. Perhaps it is a matter of video settings that I have not figured out yet.

Bahh who cares about 262 - it won't have anything fun to fight anyway except for a very limited selection of AI bombers. I like the attitude that they are focused on a high level mosquito! That's the spirit! I was a little disappointed that they did not tell anything about the mossie EA release date in the weekend news. They did give us some cool mosquito shots in the 2021 vid, so I suppose this means no Mossie EA till after the Hollydays. As for the next WWII plane speculations, I hope this is something German to go with the Mossie - JU88 attack model, or ME410.

Yep, the mossie has twice as many engines as the 109 or 190, I almost feel that it is unfair. If that will be too much for the LW to handle the mossie will be limited to 1 engine, except for a small number of them from a remote field.

As much as WWII night fighting is an interesting topic, I highly doubt this will translate into a good experience in DCS (or a computer sim in general). Night interception was aided by radar, but in the end relied on visual contact with the enemy from a short range. What will happen on a computer screen is that this will depend on your screen brightness and gamma settings - either you will not see anything, or you will be able to see the target from as far as the AI radar can acquire the target. To have a good experience you will need a very careful graphics setting, screen settings, and lighting in the room you are sitting in. I just think that this will not work very well on a computer sim.

“Terror in the starboard seat” and Sharp & Bowyer’s book are two “must own” for mosquito fans. Enjoy I would not worry too much about the K4. If the mossie dogfighting ability will be anything like it is in Aces High, it will be able to dogfight the K4 well enough. I spent about 15 years in Aces High 2 and 3 almost exclusively with the FB.VI as an air superiority fighter - not exactly what it was meant to do, but it held its own vs. the 1945 monsters. As for 190s, I used to giggle every time a 190A8 or D9 decided to try and dogfight the mossie.

So pretty, it makes your eyes wet

The Mosquito was the fasted aircraft in operations when it was introduced. The PR. mossies were the fastest in terms of max speed (they were first to enter operations in Sep. 41) and remained the fastest for quite a while with the newer PR. models. Indeed eventually the absolute "top speed" crown has been taken from them, so the Mossie was not the "fastest aircraft of WWII" in that sense. However, absolute top speed could only be maintained by fighters for a short while before having heat issues, running out of water (if they used that), or running out of fuel. The mosquito (especially PR.) remained the fastest cruise-speed aircraft - so it was no longer the fastest in a sprint, but it was still the fastest in a marathon. PR. mosquitoes completed flights of over 2000 miles at an average speed exceeding 300 mph. The official "cruise" speed of the later PR. models was 350 mph at 30 kft. The FB.VI was never claimed to be the fastest. It probably was faster on the deck than anything the LW had in mid 1943, but on the allied side the Typhoon was a little faster back then. During 1944 it was "felt" by crews that they had trouble out running the latest 190As and 109Gs. They were then authorized to use 150 octane fuel and then allowed them to continue day intruder/ranger operations. Here's a nice story of PR. Mossie escorted by P51s and the issues they had with the cruise speeds difference (also encounter with jets): http://www.mossie.org/stories/Norman_Malayney_2.htm

FB.VI entered service in May 1943. In DCS it will face 109K & 190D9 that are 1945 top of the line LW fighters. By 1945, mosquitoes enjoyed the allied air superiority, so out running LW fighters was not that big of an issue. Those mosquitoes that still needed the performance edge (PR mossies and FB.VI on day ranger mission) were using 150 octane fuel and could run their Merlins at +25 boost with a great increase of speed. I suppose that we will get FB.VI limited to +18 boost.

Just so people don’t get the wrong impression - the Merlin 25 ones are not really a “late model”. Merlin 23 FB.VI production run was very short - only the first couple hundred. The other 4000 had Merlin 25. It is not unlikely that the first FB.VI’s with the Merlin 23 were later converted to 25 in the field. The FB.VI can’t carry more than that, but it can carry it much farther and at a higher cruise speed, and if needed (IRL) - at low altitude at night. P47s rarely if ever took off with the max theoretical munition load - they’d barely get off the ground. Also dont forget that nose mounted quad Hispanos are much more powerful brrrrrt than 8 wing mounted convergence-impaired 0.5s. The 4 nose 0.303 mgs are just a cherry on top.

According to Sharp & Bowyer Book, mines were tested on the FB.VI, but were not adopted. Depth charges were operational only for a short time with little results against uboats, and then abandoned. The RP-3 rockets come in 2 flavors: 25 lbs. with a solid armor piercing head that were used by coastal command against ships (those seen in the picture above posted by krupi), and 60 lbs with a bulbous explosive head that was used against ground targets (same type as were used by Typhoons).

True, but the 9th operated a mix of late-model razobacks and bubble tops all the way to the end of the war.

Interesting. Where does this come from? However, I don’t think that this comes from FB.VI - the fuselage tanks are too big. 68 gallons is probably from a bomber or phororecce variant (should be 25 gal). Also, I think that the wing tanks of FB.VI were of pairs of equal size tanks.

After checking, I can see the source of the confusion - FB.VI has 8 tanks in the wings: 2 outboard of the engine and 2 inboard, in each wing. It also has a small fuselage tank behind the cockpit, so that is 9. However, the fuselage tank is split into left and right sections, so it could be counted as 2 for a total of 10. I could not find if the two halves of this tank are always drained together, or could the be drained individually, making then two separate tanks.

Off the top of my head I remember 9 fuel tanks. They had the ability to add more in the bomb bay, but I think that in the FB.VI that option was only used for ferrying if at all.

Just returned after changing my underwear... This is so awesome - love the screenshots, I’ll go over the pixel by pixel later tonight...:thumbup: I was starting to worry that the mossie will be pushed back due to all the other development that ED are doing. THANK YOU ED! KEEP IT COMING ON SCHEDULE AND TAKE MY MONEY!

Another weekend news and no mention of my Mossie... I understand ED are working hard on the WWII damage model, but I start to get worried :shocking:

How do you know that the pilot model is male or female? I can’t see a peepee under the flight suit.