DD_fruitbat

I don't really have a dog in this fight, certainly not going to loose sleep either way.... But reading your post just made me think of this ....

Wherever you read that, or whoever told you that, i wouldn't ever listen to that source again lol. Packard merlins were just licensed built merlins, with minor differences (the fuel sump was one from memory) They very much rotate the same way. The only plane that had a counter rotating merlin was the Hornet, the merlin 131, which was a merlin 130 with an idler gear to reverse the propeller direction. It had the merlin 130 on the port wing, and a merlin 131 on the starboard wing.

An F-16, early morning, in the desert + lots of beauty!

Love it, great job implementing this.

I have just had a quick flick through to see if I could quickly find the relevant passage in 'Spitfire The History' by Morgan and Shacklady, which is the definitive tome on everything Spitfire, and by extension the Merlin development. However Its a thick book, so go educate yourself (Amazing book). Anyway, It was a conscious decision in the original design and is documented in said book, to have a float carburettor rather than other options, as it enhanced straight line performance in the Merlin engine design, by about @20mph iirc, at sea level they concluded. Shocking I know, that people had a better understanding back then of engines they were making rather than you, I mean that's crazy right??????

I use the same, can recommend.

Whats more fun than blatting along low level in a mossie.... 3 of you blatting along at low level....

I'm a bit disturbed by how high everyone seems to be flying there Mossies !

Have you boresighted them....

I don't find you have to use the nose wheel steering or the rudder, just the toe breaks when rolling out, I'll use the rudder when I'm still air breaking if needed.

This ^ Useful against some of the older long range SAM's though,

Its defiantly there, cause I'm flying over it here! Almost certainly you need to update and have a version just a little to old.

As Grafspee correctly said, the Spit Mk IX HF is @30,000 feet and is a different engine, the Merlin 70 as opposed to the Merlin 66. The original Mk IX in 1942 had the Merlin 61 and was just designated F as opposed to LF or HF. Think more LF as the 'normal' Mk IX and the HF as a specialised higher altitude version and produced in much less numbers. You have to consider the height of operations in the ETO. The Eastern front was very different, as it followed a very different doctrine, that of tactical operations (local specific support of ground ops), as opposed to the ETO which was strategic operations. 6000 feet for example in the ETO was not a operational height and would be suicidal, as your opposition would be stacked above you with all the energy benefits. Bombers want to be much higher for self preservation and therefore so do the fighters. Even as early as the Battle of Britain, when the Mk II was introduced at the back end, its max speed was slower than the Mk Ia at nearly all heights, but critically it could fly 1000m higher(@37,000ft), and this allowed it to be above the incoming Bf109 E4's. Until the E4N showed up... and etc etc.. There are obvious exceptions, the low level hit and run raids and some planes were tuned to this mission type, and late on in the war when effectively the Allies had air superiority and being bounced was no longer a factor. Just as an aside, during the 1942/43 period, some Mk V's were optimised with the Merlin 45/50M engine to be better at low level to help counter the low level tip and run raids of the FW-190. These were actually faster than the Mk IX low down, but mid alt upwards were way worse.

On Thursday night I flew a co-op with a few friends, first time I'd flown one of the warbirds on a mission in 2.7 having mainly been cloud surfing in jets since the patch dropped!!! What a visceral experience, what with the lighting, new clouds and last years sound updates, A highly enjoyable experience Anyway some screenies and a bit of video taken from that flight..... Have to ignore my crap landing, as the flight before i was in a Jug, and that thing sits twice as high of the ground, lol,

My question is that in HACQ mode 'short', when you look straight forward it now defaults to the boresight circle in the hud in 2.7 (as it should do), it didn't seem to before (or at least was very problematic), you had to aim off with the plane and use the helmets 'boresight' all the time when in that ACM mode pre patch to achieve best results. But Does HACQ 'long' translate to the same 40 mile range with the hud boresight circle when looking straight forward and flying directly at a target, along with the 40 mile range of the helmet looking off bore of the planes axis? I assume it should, but does it actually in DCS at the moment.

I haven't ever tested, but have often wondered, with the JHMCS turned on, SCS forward short is boresight/Helmet acquisition to 10 miles, but SCS forward long is helmet acquisition to 40miles, does that also carry across to boresight when your looking straight forward....

I happened to make this vid a while back, I know its a Hornet not a Viper, but at 10,000 feet you can hit a truck, as long as no wind in CCRP,

Same here.

F16 tooling around, The new clouds are simply fantastic.

I'd much prefer a B and C/D (flip of a coin), but an E and an N would be a close second choice.

Because we talk to each other.....

Would absolutely love a 'Jester, priority next TWS track' button. When there's a couple of us flying together (both front seat) its a pain that one of us has to go to STT lock and can only fire one missile, as both our Jesters want to lock the same targets in the same order in TWS, when in a multi bandit BVR engagement.

No, because the official name isn't as good and Viper is used commonly by its pilots and crews.

I mean, why wouldn't you What's not fun about doing this! PS, @Mover love your channel

This, SA15's have for as long as I've been attacking them been able, but not everytime.