Bozon

I think this is the same content, or very similar: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/1980s-israel-developed-heavy-hammer-f-4-super-phantom-what-happened-44702

Well, it is hard and heavy - if it hits someone on the head it can cause serious trauma.

Mosquito wings come off pretty easily. Maybe too easily, but the exact value is not the root of the issue. The real issue is that the Mosquito modeling does not convey any feel or feedback to G load or any airframe stress for that matter. The purpose of the elevator counter weight was to add force-feedback to G load (plus some oscillations damping) to the pilot’s hand - we can’t feel that. There are little to no sound cues, no noticeable increasing vibrations - unless you look behind at your wingtip vortices trail you have no clue that you are pulling G at all. These feedbacks need to be enhanced - even slightly exaggerated, to compensate for the fact that our actual stick is connected to a simple spring, and our ass is seated in a stable chair at exactly 1G no matter how hard we pull on the stick. Only then it will matter if the wings come off at 4.9 or 5.5 G.

This is why we need to be able to plot and edit waypoints and routes on-the-fly from F10 map. Then your AI navigator can act and react relative to this route as in Reflected’s scripts. Currently on MP servers I have to make pen&paper notes of the route that I plan on the ground before takeoff. For low level navigation this is crucial, especially without an AI “hold straight & level” pilot so I can only mess with F10 for a few seconds before jumping back to “pilot” to correct flight attitude.

At some point, de Havilland made a modification that allowed a regulated continuous transfer of fuel from the DT to the outer wing tanks without venting fuel. There is a comment about this in the pilot notes. DCS FB.VI is modeled without this modification, so once the outer tanks are full, excess fuel that is pushed into these tanks will be vented.

@Terry Dactil thanks! Now I have to try Voice Attack - talking to my navigator seems like fun and immersive. So, do you have to alt+tab to switch profiles in VA when I choose a different plane in DCS, or can I also set a voice command to select a profile? E.g., “Switch profile Mosquito” (sorry for going a little off topic here)

Unfortunately that’s part of my startup procedure, drop tanks release cover too when I carry them. I don’t know what is the big issue with adding flares to the Mossie like the 109 has. It is not like this requires difficult crew animations - there is no crew!

The best book I found about the Banff Strike wing is: "A Separate Little War" by Andrew Bird. A very interesting chronological description of all their operations since they formed in September 1944 to VE day. In my old thread about "Less famous Mosquito Stories", the 1st one was about the wild "Boxing Day Raid" on Leirvik, based mostly on the above mentioned book:

The Starfighter was perfectly capable of killing its pilot without a gun, which seems to be the main purpose of this fighter

@GUFA, Indeed it seems that Missiles became the main weapon since the 1980’s. Initially the IR missiles and then the latest FOX1 and FOX3 since the 1990’s. The reliability of the missiles and number carried per plane are what made the gun less needed. However, we have not yet faced the next stage of the evolution - the counter measures. Since the 2000’s counter measures technology has leapt forward. We now have sophisticated active jammers against fox1 & 3, and active laser counter measures against fox2. There could be other means in the future. How will this play out in the next conflict? Will these counter measures reduce missiles effectiveness to the point where guns will be required again?

Here I found this article: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf It has the breakdown of kills in air combat around the world over the decades. There are strong differences between their air forces. While in 1972 the vast majority of American kills were with missiles, the Israeli air force was still getting 60% of the kills in 1972-73 with cannons. In absolute numbers, the Israelis had more gun kills during this period than all the American air to air kills in Vietnam during this period, combined - so this heavily skews the global averages.

During Yom Kipur 1973 war a significant fraction of the kills by the Israeli air force were still with cannons, divided between Nesher, Mirage III and Phantom F-4E (many gun kills). During 1982 over the Bakaa valley, most kills were by Shafrir missiles and some Aim-9. Sparrows were used by F-15A and had a small number of kills and were considered as poor. They were highly susceptible to ECM, especially active emitters. Still, a few gun kills happened by F-16A and F-15A - I don’t have an exact breakdown. The Israeli air force would not accept a fighter without a cannon. Maybe in 2023 things are different. The F-104 proved that you don’t need a cannon if you do not engage the enemy. Especially in the 60’s & 70’s.

“Should” or “is” fine for the most time in DCS?

The cloud base is what matters the most. If the cloud base is high enough, then they had an instruments descent process to penetrate the clouds and end up just under the cloud base with the runaway in front, to proceed with visual landing. I am not sure of the details, if this was GCI guided, or instrumentation, or both. If the cloud base was under the limit or runway visibility too poor (fog) then they had to divert to another field.

The issue for flak gunners shooting at very low targets is: what happens with the shells that miss? If you fly a few feet above ground across the airfield, the flak gunners are blasting away at their own structures behind you from their perspective - they’ll probably cause more damage to their own base than you will be able to. Even at slightly higher elevations there is a risk that the shells with too long fuses will hit the ground around the airfield before air-bursting, wrecking havoc in a few km radius. I don’t know how it played out in reality, but I expect flak gunners were worried about this when shooting at low elevations.

Israel Aerospace Industries had a flying prototype of Super Phantom, which was an Israeli upgraded “Kurnas” with the Lavi’s intended PW1120 engines. These were small enough to easily fit into the Phantom. The performance could embarrass some 4th generation fighters. This was in 1987. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/07/israels-f-4-super-phantom-the-killer-fighter-jet-that-never-flew/

@grafspee, you mix things up regarding the Mosquitos. Mk XVI is B.XVI - it is an unarmed bomber optimized for high altitudes. It comes from a different development line (different prototype) than our FB.VI. In addition, FB.VI was special by being optimized for operating at very low altitudes. While the top speed of the B.XVI is significantly higher (30+ mph) than FB.VI’s, it is achieved at nearly 30,000 feet. At sea level the FB.VI was the fastest mosquito model. FB.VI entered service in May 1943, and changed very little to the end of the war. In 1943 and at low altitudes it was faster than any Lufwaffe fighter - the contemporaries were 109G6 and 190A5. By mid 1944 the speed advantage was eroded, and day intruder/ranger mosquitos were equipped with 150 octane fuel and engine boosts of +25 (our does +18). This again pushed the FB.VI to be faster than the Luftwaffe fighters (109G14 and 190A8 by then). By the end of the war, the latest LW fighters 109K4 and 190D9 were as fast or faster than an FB.VI even with 150 octane fuel. However, as mentioned in the posts above, these were a small minority of the LW force and the FB.VI met mostly the older slower opponents. Some FB.VI squadrons whose missions were mostly night ground attack and close to the front lines under allied air superiority, still used 130 octane fuel since they rarely met LW fighters at all. The situation in DCS is that we have the 1943 performance Mosquito FB.VI facing in day light the 1944 190A8, and mostly the 1945 109K4 and 190D9, without the benefit of 150 octane fuel required for that. The story with the speed of the bomber variants and the night fighters is a little different, but we don’t have them in DCS.

A Very flares pistol is a must.

HB are putting the final touches on the C0ff3 cup holder and the A.S.H Tray modeling. After that it is just a matter of texturing the fuzzy dice hanging front the pilot’s rear view mirror and the plastic Jesus on the GiB’s front panel and it is ready for release.

Put it on high sensitivity when you turn on the 1155 and leave it that way.

Look, from your replies it is obvious that you are in over your head. There are some basics that you need to learn about each specific plane. Did you do the tutorial missions? Did you read one of the guides (dcs’s or Chuck’s)? https://chucksguides.com/

If you are doing a rudder dance, you are already doing it wrong. If you handle it correctly, the Mosquito requires very little rudder and/or differential braking inputs. The key ingredients: 1. Align the tail wheel and get to a complete STOP. 2. Trim rudder right till the indicator points to the letter “T” of “Trim”. Elevators two notches forwards (a long press). Ailerons 1 notch to the right. Flaps 10 degrees on the gauge. 3. While on brakes, bring the power up to 10–12 boost - no more at this stage! Do not let go of the brakes before the power stabilizes. 4. Let go of the brakes. If you start veering off, apply rudder to resist until fully deflected - if this is not enough (it will not be at slow speeds) only then tap the brakes lever while still at full rudder deflection. When the veering is negated try to hold course with the rudder alone - no sudden changes, and no dancing on the rudder! 5. Within a couple of seconds you will be able to completely overcome any veering off tendencies with the rudder alone. Do not use the brakes if the rudder alone is sufficient! From this point, rudder inputs should be minimal and smooth. 5. Do not mess with the throttles until you have a strong rudder response - then you can go full power if you like.

For some reason, the Mosquito’s “neutral” nose trim at typical cruising speeds is around 2 notches “forwards” on the indicator. This is quite a lot and takes a long press of the “trim nose down” assigned button. Make it a habit to trim elevator 2 notches forward before take-off (10 deg flaps also smoothens the takeoff). This will lift your tail by itself at around 100 mph, and after takeoff accelerating past the safe speed your trim will require only small adjustments.

Without an AI pilot and/or AI navigator, our Mosquito is a revolutionary concept of a two-seat single-crew plane The main reason I need an AI level-holding pilot is to allow me to open F10 for navigation. It is different from doing the same in my P-47, because in the latter I fly high and finding scenery key points for visual navigation is easy, fast and safe. Navigation at 50 feet is much more demanding and I need to hold F10 open longer, during which I can’t see ahead - and while the room for error before clipping a house/tree is very narrow. No updates for so long is disappointing. The Mosquito is mostly complete and the missing pieces are not critical, but come on, show us just a little progress once in a few moons?

Interesting, this could explain a few things, like why sometimes the artificial horizon never correct itself and in other sorties it is OK - sometimes while taxiing I do pull the throttle back to slow down into a turn, and RPM drops to below 1200 during the maneuver. So if the quoted above is correct, the state of my AH during the sortie will depend on how I behaved during taxi. I’ll have to test that. In any case this seems incorrect. I mean AH not functioning at low RPM and suction is OK, but it should recover just fine after RPM is increased.