Bozon

An amazing aircraft in many ways, and the one with highest action/glory ratio. The British plane with highest number of air to air victories after the Spitfire and Hurricane. A true forgotten hero - this is what happens when your successor is an even more amazing aircraft and one of the best looking aircraft of all times. Definitely a day 1 buy for me. Btw, is there any other aircraft manufacturer besides Bristol that produced its own engines?

We got to have one all-black paint scheme. Nothing says “mobster” better than an all black ride with guns sticking out the front.

@crazyave, the mosquito requires a very significant Y saturation in the stick calibration - most of the full linear stick travel is useless and beyond the effective travel of the elevators. I too strongly dislike how DCS model the stick moments (geared towards people with stick extension length similar to the real stick), but it is what it is. So put a lot of saturation and reduce the curvature to a minimum. The other thing that makes pitch control difficult is that the flight model fails to deliver a feeling for the angle of attack or how deep into the stall you are. We need more sound cues and/or gradual vibrations to get some feeling. As for the yaw axis, the mosquito has a lot of adverse yaw. This is typical to planes with wingspans as long or longer than their fuselage. On top of that there are secondary effects from the props (gyro and p-factor). In the mosquito you must coordinate the rudder with every deflection of the ailerons - this is important for creating a smooth roll without flinging the nose around, and significantly increases the roll rate vs an uncoordinated roll. I know this is not easy - I fly sailplanes and there the effect is extreme, so it takes time to develop the instinct for this. It helps a lot if you unload the plane during fast rolls and load it again after the roll. For coordinating the turn it helps to look forwards along the plane axis while rolling. The latter is not alway possible during combat and the former requires to develop a slightly different flying style than the single engine fighters.

I absolutely disagree about #2,3,4.

AFAIK Israeli F-4E were carrying AGM-142 Have Nap (aka Popeye) during the 90’s until their retirement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popeye_(missile)

F-4E flew in anger over both maps you just mentioned. Flew over the Sinai that is coming too. How far do your “realism” standards go? What about a fictional mission over a historical map, is that OK with you?

Well you can always choose not to engage the water injection.

I am 100% in support of this. It has been requested before, so far it looks like this will not happen.

FM-2 was quite capable. Of course by that time newer fighters arrived at the scene, which were even more capable - but older models were still abundant (on both sides) and FM-2 scored well in air combat against them. It is like the illusion that the allied in 1945 were fighting against 109K-4 and 190D9/Ta152 - those were just a small fraction of the enemy fighters force, still largely composed of various 109G’s and radial Fw190. Same goes for Ki84, Ki100, etc at the far east.

I believe that the correct way to use the RI is by setting the broad, manually rotating arrow to the direction you wish to keep. Then, the heading-indicating needle needs to be parallel to it - it stays parallel at all perspectives and is easy to monitor by a quick glance towards the dial. No need to read the numbers during cruise.

Sure, but look at the low trajectories - you need to land the shot on top of the plane and a tiny error in elevation leads to a large error in the range where the shot “lands” (crosses the flight altitude of the target). An AA gunner has great difficulty is estimating whether his shots are landing too short or too long and on top of that, ranges keep changing - it is not the same as land artillery that shoot - observe the hit - and correct the next shot. AA gunner’s errors tend not to converge. And range estimation errors are systematic - if you get it wrong you will not hit no matter how many shots you fire.

“Small” caliber 20mm, 37mm, 40mm etc. When shooting at a plane at a significant distance and at a shallow elevation, the aiming problem becomes 3D, as the projectile flies at an arc and must land on the moving target.

?! The P-47N most definitely took part in WWII, escorting B-29s to Japan. P-47M was basically the latest “D” model incorporating “field mods” as factory standard and approved to run the engine at 72” man pressure. It was only sent to the 56th FG in the ETO and in practice was not much different than their field-modded P47 “D”s. P47-N was a significant variation over the D series, the first of which was a different wing - extended, squared off and with a fuel tank in it. Takeoff weight went from “high” to “ludicrous” and it needed as much runway as the B-29s... It only served in the PTO.

I calculated the probability that I will be buying the F-15E. Taking into account numerous factors, the economy, the phases of the moon, global warming, etc, and came out with an exact prediction of 0.0%. Repeating the calculation for the F-4E Phantom I get 99.999981% accounting for the possibility that the earth will be destroyed between now and release date.

That is probably a mistake, meant “P-47N”. AFAIK the M was only used by the 56th FG of the 8AF.

It seems as if DCS treats AAA accuracy as a 2D error: calculate the correct solution and introduce an error in azimuth and elevation. This is the proper error for a laser weapon. Real errors are 3D with the largest component being the range. You don’t just aim ahead of the target, you have to arc the shots, especially at low elevation angles. Range estimation errors thus introduce an error to both the elevation (balistic arc) and the amount of lead that is required. Even if the target is coming straight at you, the gunner still has to continuously correct for range. WWII AAA did not have laser range finders or radars to automatically update the range for the aiming solution. Thus aiming at a low flying plane from a distance was really really difficult. Imagine throwing a stone at an arc in such a way that it lands on top of a plane whizzing by. Most of the time they couldn’t even see if their shots are landing too short or too long relative to the target.

OK, those planes you mentioned were in DCS before the Normandy map. You may argue that Normandy & Channel were not the best choices of maps given the warbirds roster - and I would agree. The -3 and -5 are so similar that they are akin to the difference between the P-47-D30 and -D40: P-47-D40 has the HVAR rockets and a slightly stronger WEP on water injection. Visually you’d be hard pressed to distinguish them. The F6F-5 had the HVAR rockets, water injection (-3 were retrofitted I believe) and slightly better roll rate due to metal ailerons. Visually you’d be hard pressed to distinguish them (unless you know to look for that small window behind the pilot). Given that, I don’t mind getting just a -5, with the option to disable water injection and not load HVAR, and I’ll happily treat it as a -3. Screw that useless tiny window.

Some examples: 1. No Very pistol in spite of it appearing in the ground menu. 2. No in cockpit pilot models - we are flying empty seats. 3. No navigator AI at all. The current mosquito is a novel concept of a twin-seat single-crewman plane, where you skip you @$$ between the chairs in order to be able to reach all the switches - binds don’t work from the other seat, so they don’t even represent “requesting” your invisible navigator to flip a switch for you. 4. There have been issues with feathering the props - I don’t know if those got fixed already. Pretty darn critical since I hardly ever return home on two engines (or at all) after contact with the enemy. 5. Performance wise, our mosquito has the performance of a configuration with saxophone exhausts plus flame shrouds, which is 15 mph slower than the configuration with the stub exhausts that we are supposed to have. 6. The magnetic compass next to your left knee disagrees with the magnetic remote indicator compass. 7. The cannons don’t start firing all together (neither do the MGs) - they fire in a sequence starting from the starboard side (iirc). OK most of this stuff is not critical, but any kind of advancement on any of these issues would have been nice.

What do you mean?

This should be in the special options tab - to turn this horn off completely.

You guys are going about this the wrong way. It is just a matter of getting the boat going fast enough. I’ll have a word with the coal shuffling guys below decks - and alert the fleet because the wake we are about to create may flip the destroyers escorts over.

Nonsese! Pull that stick in a love embrace, fire all of your guns at once and explode into space!

“Consistent” is not about balance - it just means that the AIM-7E or AIM-9J or whatever will behave the same regardless of the plane that releases it.

Thanks for the clarification. So, I suppose 3 bombs load was theoretically possible? I never saw it mentioned so even if possible it was probably never used, but I am not a great expert on F6F history.

F6F-5 entered serial production around April or May 1944, so that is mid 44. I don’t know when they got into action because carrier action tends to be more episodic - maybe late 44. The differences between the F6F-3 and -5 that players will notices are 3: 1. The WEP with water injection. 2. Modified ailerons that slightly improved roll rate (not as much as hoped). 3. Air to ground capacity - HVAR for sure. I don’t know about bombs - F6F-5 could carry two, but I know that at the attack on Truk in early 1944 hellcats were dropping 1000 lbs bombs, so the -3 could carry at least one.