Bremspropeller

Did some more testing yesterday and I can second that. Taking off in a crosswind will dip the wing immediately on liftoff and the jet won't keep the wings level when trimmed for hands-off flying. Generally, the jet should stay where you last pointed it. Also, how do I get the tanker to talk to me? I tried building a mission to sip some gas, but the tanker won't answer my calls. The radio was hard-tuned to same freq (251) via the ME. I also tried fumbling with the radio (TR and TR+G) but the tanker seemed to not care about my calls anyway, despite calling "on station".

Hey @PeeJott17 thanks for the very nice mod! Here are some thoughts I had after throwing the jet around (version 2.9.16.099): - The engine gauge (small dial) seems to read 0.1% percents, while it should read whole percents. - The engine-response needs to be quicker (see F-4E for reference - about 4s idle to MIL) - The engine seems to have too much thrust in MIL and in blower relative to the available lift/drag, which also seems slightly high. On the deck I have trouble keeping speeds below 450 (flaps T/O) and maintaining 7g in burner, which suggests too much thrust (and lift!) in blower and flaps T/O. I can even maintain higher g than that. A somewhat similar behaviour with flaps up and in MIL at about 500KIAS: Not enough drag and I'll have to go to just below 5 on the APC gauge to make her slow down at all. With the -7 motor, the jet should be a bit more thrust-limited during those turns. The -19 motor in a late A might be a different story altogether. Config tested was two AIM-9Bs on the tips. - Roll-response is too sluggish. The jet should roll WAY quicker. Roll damping seems okay to me, though. - Pitch generally seems alright, even though I believe there's a little too much lift in those wing-stubs and I barely need to use the T/O flaps to make the nose come around when flying clean. - The rate-shaker is probably hard to implement. Are you planning to implement the kicker and the APC-cutout function for the kicker in the future? The C seems to not have a paddle-switch for the kicker, though. I personally believe the pitch-up is a bit too high-gain and should have a smoother and somewhat more controllable, yet progressive onset. Modelling might be very hard, though.

Time for a Bump

wwiiairfcraftperformance unfortunately is down and only the first test (ptr-1107: F4U-1 vs F6F-3 vs Fw 190) is attainable otherwise via web archives. Do you possibly have a link to the latter ('44 trials)? Guyton in "Whistling Death" quotes "more than 180°/s" which I find to be grossly exaggerated, given the data at hand. As mentioned before, 120-145°/s is reasonable at high speeds, given the data out of America's Hundred Throusand. But not at ~250mph, where the 190 peaks. For that, you'd need substantial modifications on the ailerons and possiblythe wing, instead of just adding boost-tabs. Boost tabs alone will help slightly in initial roll response (*) and mostly in achievable roll rate at high speed. They won't change achievable roll-rate at speeds below max attainable stick-force. ___ (*) time for the stick to bang onto the stop is quicker, the lighter the required forces are

Where's that data from?

The data in America's Hundred Throusand shows a top roll-rate of around 90°/s (at 290 mph, graph shows a limited speed range, though) and claims anecdotal rates of up to 120°/s at about 350mph. Extrapolating the available graph shows that's a believable claim, but no actual data is given. That means the 190 would roll quicker below about 320mph and the Corsair above 320mph (give or take a couple of mph). At 255mph (the 190's calculated peak roll rate at 50lbs stick force), the Fw is about 100% better than the Corsair's roll-rate (160°/s vs 80°/s).

IIRC the test you're referring to was with a F4U-4 with improved ailerons. F4U-1 should be around 90°/s, give or take.

Interesting. On all the attempts so far that had me actually touch the deck, I trapped (8-10 traps total so far). Single mission built by myself on Mariannas WW2. Yes, the hook will skip (and it does clip the deck, which seems to be a known issue). Usually I'll catch the wire abeam of the aft part of the island and stop normally. Have you tried approaching lower and cutting earlier?

Will the Essex class carrier have catapults and other features in the future - e.g a functional crash barrier?

+1

Refer to this thread for some more Magic 1 perf info (anecdotal by SME). Also note the Magic 1 has a wrong model - the notches in the rear fins are Magic 2 only features. The model used to be correct in the regard a couple of patches ago.

The crash wasn't attributed to torque roll at all. The video Krupi posted is pointing out the real issue: Pilot probably panicked and applied LEFT rudder when leaving the bow, mixed with signifigant up elevator. The airplane stalled and went for a rudder-induced low speed snap-roll. The video sequence is taken from a longer video, showing Carquals. The other pilots are doing just fine, taking off, landing and waving off in close, using proper control technique: Mishap is about 5:15 into the video. When flown correctly, there should be no torque-rolling about.

IRL, they should be dropped, pulling out a lanyard to arm the rocket motor and only ignite below the aircraft.

It was only renamed to Hagatna (it's proper native name) in 1998. Alternatively, the towns could be assigned their japaneese names used during the occupation.

I was surprised as well the other day, when I mindlessly scrolled by the airfield on the map. The arrangement of the hangars has been reversed/mirrored as well - it's looking convincing now.

That one's been fixed!

Pferdsfeld's runway should be a rollercoaster:

Awesome idea, thanks for your continuous work based on feedback from the community! Three to four things just from the top of my mind and in no particular order: 1) Hermannsdenmal in Teutoburg Forrest near Detmold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermannsdenkmal That antenna in the background may or may not qualify on the timescale. 2) RAFG Harrier roadbase(s) (someone had made a thread about one near Detmold) 3) Communication Towers (not sure if the list is all encompassing, but it's a strter anyway) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communication_towers_in_Germany https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:Deutsche_Funkturm Take this one as an example, which is close to Bückeburg (just left of the frame) and Rinteln (just to the right): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobsberg_Telecommunication_Tower 4) Kaiser Wilhelm Denkmal at Porta Westfalica (seen in pic above)

Would this be one of the warehouses? I guess all power-drills would be using Lightning-ports https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK-Air-Force/English-Electric-Lightning-F2/235465/L

Thanks a lot for the fix, Ugra!

A post-KWS Alpha Jet A to be precise (ECM gear, C20 motors) Split Air is making an E-model mod, which by itself is awesome, but I guess it would cut into the sales potential of the Alphons.

Oh boy, what a rabbit-hole Thanks for pointing that out! I've gone through a couple of photos of jets with M1s and they're all also showing opaque seeker domes. All of the shots are mid 80s (86-87) at N'Djamena (hence live missiles). https://www.airhistory.net/photo/780491/279 https://www.airhistory.net/photo/780245/265 https://www.airhistory.net/photo/777453/214 https://www.airhistory.net/photo/781985/632 I take this to be an old Magic 1 training round (?) (early 80s). https://www.airhistory.net/photo/772915/37 There's also this (86 - more modern?) training round, looking closer to the later M2 training missiles: https://www.airhistory.net/photo/763059/10 Is it certain that the M1 had the opaque seeker from the beginning, or was that just a mod some time into production? Or was the transparent dome even just a thing on inert training missiles other than the blue one shown above? Not trying to be right, just genuinely interested. @Aerges: Do you think it's feasible implementing some training/ ACMI missiles for the Sidewinders and/ or Magics on the F1? I know the effort going into that is probably not going to pay off, but it would be a nice touch nonetheless.

Did more digging into this - they're two different models, but the Magic 1 has the notches in the rear fins. Magic 1 on the right wing. Magic 2 on the left. They're two different models. M1 does, however, also have M2's opaque seeker window, which is wrong. Magic 1, however should look like this (seeeker cap in place, no notches in tailfins): Clear seeker glass: The Magic 1 in game used to have the non-notched tailfin, but it always had the opaque seeker. Does anybody know the reason why it was changed? Sorry for the hi-jack, but I guess we're talking about Magic 1 issues anyway

On a tangent: When loading Magic 1 missiles, a Magic 2 model is actually loaded (with a notch in the rear fins).

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but telling devs to change the game logic so you can game it a little more isn't helpful in my opinion. It should be up to the mission designer to not build scenarios completely out of fairytale land. That includes not using aircraft from airbases that aren't up to the task. The runway at BWE in game is 1620m long, plus overruns. That's not enough for jet ops, unless said jet is a Slowtation. The good news is there'll be plenty of suitable airfields in future phases.