DCS: de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB Mk VI Discussion

[Joe1978]

I also watch constantly but.... DC has said that at the end of the first quarter, so until April I don't think we will see anything new

[Land0]

1 hour ago, Joe1978 said:

I also watch constantly but.... DC has said that at the end of the first quarter, so until April I don't think we will see anything new

April would be Q2. Hoping to see something by the end of March, but given no more info and it having already being delayed from the end of 2020, perhaps it has in fact been delayed further. I’d certainly expect to see more pictures/videos by now.

[Mogster]

Shame they aren’t flyers, but even so 

 

 

[Bozon]

Thanks @Mogster.

The Mossie looks so small next to the Lanc . It is good to see that though they don’t fly, they can still start up and taxi on their own power - there is still some life in these old birds 

[Mogster]

20 minutes ago, Bozon said:

Thanks @Mogster.

The Mossie looks so small next to the Lanc . It is good to see that though they don’t fly, they can still start up and taxi on their own power - there is still some life in these old birds 

Yes, I love seeing them flying but when surviving airframes and complete restorations are so rare I’ve almost come to prefer this approach. So many have been lost in crashes, aircrew also, the loss of Mosquito RR299 and it’s crew at Barton airshow is still painful and it was 25 years ago.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Mogster

[bart]

6 hours ago, Bozon said:

 

The Mossie looks so small next to the Lanc . It is good to see that though they don’t fly, they can still start up and taxi on their own power - there is still some life in these old birds 

The Lancaster may look a lot bigger from the outside, but inside there still  isn't a lot of room! I had a taxi ride in her a few years ago, managed to bag the bomb aimers position....what an experience. A day I will never forget.

 

If you ever get the chance to visit East Kirkby and see these aircraft I would say go! It's a wonderful place, very atmospheric and the staff are great.

 

The main spar looking forward past the radio ops position on the left. The astrodome is the window in the roof just above the chaps head.

 

Bomb aimers position with the front turret above. It really was a tight squeeze to get in there! 

 

Pilot's eye view.

 

Cockpit not much wider than a family car!

 

The dreaded main spar looking towards the rear of the aircraft.

Edited March 8, 2021 by bart

[bart]

That isn't me in the photo pointing BTW  

 

 

The last shot is a photo of my late father who served on bomber command as an engine fitter, that's him bottom right working on a Lancaster port outer. So as you can imagine it was an emotional day I spent with "Just Jane" She really was a fitting tribute to all who served both in her and on her and aircraft like her.

Edited March 8, 2021 by bart

[rkk01]

My thoughts on the lack of Mossie hype:

 

- no point releasing the module until DCS 2.7 is released... whilst that might be a dull practicality, I don’t see why that would limit the hype train 

- the extra time and lack of news is because the team are busy at work fitting snd testing the Molins....

[Lurker]

Haven't gone through the whole thread, it might have already been discussed? How do you think this variant of the Mossie will fare in the DCS WWII multiplayer arena against the different German fighters? Do you think that it will be able to hold it's own against any of them? Thoughts on tactics when defending against the different German fighters? 

[rkk01]

43 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Haven't gone through the whole thread, it might have already been discussed? How do you think this variant of the Mossie will fare in the DCS WWII multiplayer arena against the different German fighters? Do you think that it will be able to hold it's own against any of them? Thoughts on tactics when defending against the different German fighters? 

Low, fast, don’t turn...

[Lurker]

27 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

Low, fast, don’t turn...

 

So basically just run away at treetop? Interesting tactic...could be cool if people actually did interesting low level bombing missions for the Mossie. I might even consider buying one at that point. *sigh* So much of the WWII stuff is half-baked in DCS. I wish it wasn't. My very first Revell model airplane was a scale model of the Mossie actually. I think I was about 9 at the time. Always loved it's design

[razo+r]

9 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

So basically just run away at treetop? Interesting tactic...could be cool if people actually did interesting low level bombing missions for the Mossie. I might even consider buying one at that point. *sigh* So much of the WWII stuff is half-baked in DCS. I wish it wasn't. My very first Revell model airplane was a scale model of the Mossie actually. I think I was about 9 at the time. Always loved it's design

 

I'd imagine that you might be able to turn with the A8, but running is not a bad idea.

 

Against the K4, I'd imagine the best strategy is to stay fast so the K4 doesn't have full authority on the controls anymore.

 

Against D9, well... Run and get someone to help you I'd say.

[rkk01]

I guess it will all depend on the FM and how quickly the Mossie bleeds energy in turns...

 

Others have posted here on how the strike wing Mossies took on and scored against 109s / 190s on Norway raids, but I suspect that was running in fast, hit hard and keep going...

[bart]

I watched a brilliant documentary on Operation Jericho on you tube a while ago. The producers did extensive interviews with Flt Lt Maxwell Sparks AFC. He was the last remaining member of aircrew still surviving at the time the programme was made who was actively involved in the raid.

 

During the interview he said " There is a saying in Mossies, you go in fast.....and get out faster"!!

 

Probably a good tactic to stick with in our Mosquito I think.

Edited March 10, 2021 by bart

[Mogster]

An important real world consideration is that in a chase the Mosquito has way more gas to play with than a perusing 109 or 190. 
 

The RAF spent a long time dogfighting various Mosquito variants against single engine fighters. The conclusion was that running was always the best option, the Mosquito had sufficient level performance to frustrate most opponents and fuel on board to run at full throttle for extended periods. A properly flown single engine fighter will always out manoeuvre a multi engine plane. 

[Bozon]

10 hours ago, Lurker said:

Haven't gone through the whole thread, it might have already been discussed? How do you think this variant of the Mossie will fare in the DCS WWII multiplayer arena against the different German fighters? Do you think that it will be able to hold it's own against any of them? Thoughts on tactics when defending against the different German fighters? 

Mossie FB.VI entered service in May 1943 when the Luftwaffe had nothing like the Dora and 109K4, so what it will face in DCS are not its typical opponents.

 

It was never meant to be a day fighter - one of the very few roles this multi-role air-frame was not the best at. However, this does not mean that the FB.VI was not a dangerous opponent in a dogfight - it actually was. When FB.VI met with 109s and 190s during daytime, it was usually on a strike mission. Shooting down enemies was not the priority and the situation would typically place the Mossies at a disadvantage - therefore they would choose to disengage. Also remember that dog fighting was not the focus of these pilots training. BUT, with aggressive pilots (often transferred from fighters) or when cornered, the FB.VIs were not an easy kill and often came out on top. FB.VIs on day-rangers, or coastal command "Instep" patrols would attack 190/109s if they felt they had the advantage (numerical, position, or surprise).

 

As to how it will fare in multiplayer, the only reference we currently have is other games. Aces-High has pretty good flight models and there I flew FB.VI almost exclusively for many years - and I flew it as an air superiority fighter (I was terrible at bombing, could barely guarantee my bombs will even hit earth):

190A8 if it did not have an initial advantage was basically food - all it could do is try to shake you off in a max speed dive or waste your ammo by rolling and jinking.

190D if it tried a knife fight against the Mossie, the Mossie would distribute its parts all over the terrain. If it had the advantage, 190D could boom and zoom the mossie till the cows come home and the mossie pilot would have to be very sharp and create to survive - you can't run from 190D.

109K could knife fight the mossie, especially with lots of nose-high maneuvers. In a flat rate fight or one-circle they were pretty close. FB.VI can't run away from 109K.

 

The Mossie in Aces-high really REALLY needed WEP boost of +18 lbs to be in the fight - as long as you could keep that boost up, it was a very capable opponent even against the 1945 fighters. In many-on-many melee the mosquito is even more dangerous - it is fast enough (down low) to move around and get the initiative, and the quad-cannons package is basically a death-ray - nose mounted, no convergence issues, tight clustering, good Hispano ballistics. You only need a gun solution once...

[Lurker]

15 hours ago, Mogster said:

A properly flown single engine fighter will always out manoeuvre a multi engine plane. 

 

What about when employing Boom and Zoom tactics? Not saying that the Mossie could do it, but the P38J, could hit extreme diving speeds once it's compressibility issues were worked out, hit hard and then use it's momentum and the power of it's two engines to get all its energy\altitude back up again? Or is the weight of these two engine fighters simply too great for their T/W ratios to be anything but mediocre? 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Lurker

[Mr_sukebe]

Has there been any mention of 150 fuel?  Rather hoping that the Mossie will see it introduced for all of the Merlin engined aircraft 

[Bozon]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

 

What about when employing Boom and Zoom tactics? Not saying that the Mossie could do it, but the P38J, could hit extreme diving speeds once it's compressibility issues were worked out, hit hard and then use it's momentum and the power of it's two engines to get all its energy\altitude back up again? Or is the weight of these two engine fighters simply too great for their T/W ratios to be anything but mediocre? 

 

The power loading of the Mossie is close to that of the P-51. The P-38 is even a little lower (i.e., more power per weight). This is not what holds the twin-engine fighters back.

 

The twins have a lot more inertia, especially in the roll, so while the P-38 had a good roll rate with boosted ailerons, it took longer to reach that roll rate than it took for say a FW190. It also takes longer to stop the roll, so the plane feels less “snappy” in spite of a great roll rate on paper.

Heavier weight also induce more induced-drag at low speeds. That means that the back of the power curve is significantly steeper in the twins vs. the singles. So when these planes slow down to near stall they tend to sag and sink more than the singles. When we try to compare 2 planes there are more factors involved, but this is the general tends we expect to find. P-38 was a bit special because the counter rotating props offered some unique advantages at low speeds.

 

The fighter that was the direct decedent of the mossie - the “Hornet” was a twin and one of the most capable piston engine fighters ever. Eric Brown said it was the best. I don’t know exactly where it ranks, but it was way up there at the top. So twin engines does not automatically makes for a bad fighter. 

[Lurker]

36 minutes ago, Bozon said:

The power loading of the Mossie is close to that of the P-51. The P-38 is even a little lower (i.e., more power per weight). This is not what holds the twin-engine fighters back.

 

The twins have a lot more inertia, especially in the roll, so while the P-38 had a good roll rate with boosted ailerons, it took longer to reach that roll rate than it took for say a FW190. It also takes longer to stop the roll, so the plane feels less “snappy” in spite of a great roll rate on paper.

Heavier weight also induce more induced-drag at low speeds. That means that the back of the power curve is significantly steeper in the twins vs. the singles. So when these planes slow down to near stall they tend to sag and sink more than the singles. When we try to compare 2 planes there are more factors involved, but this is the general tends we expect to find. P-38 was a bit special because the counter rotating props offered some unique advantages at low speeds.

 

 

Yes I'm aware of their limitations, in fact you forgot another one. Lower T/W ratios compared to smaller, single-engine fighters. All of these limitations are mostly in relation to turn-fighting or say we shall dog-fighting. I'm wondering whether energy fighting is an option in any of the two-engine piston WWII warbirds and whether they can at least match the performance of the single-engine fighters in some parts of that regime. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Lurker

[Bozon]

4 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Yes I'm aware of their limitations, in fact you forgot another one. Lower T/W ratios compared to smaller, single-engine fighters. All of these limitations are mostly in relation to turn-fighting or say we shall dog-fighting. I'm wondering whether energy fighting is an option in any of the two-engine piston WWII warbirds and whether they can at least match the performance of the single-engine fighters in some parts of that regime. 

 

If by T/W you mean thrust to weight ratio then this is about the same as the inverse of power loading, which is mass per engine power. “Thrust” terminology is not often used in relation to prop planes because the prop can change the relation between power and actual thrust quite a bit.

 

Anyway, P-38 and Mosquito did not have lower power to mass ratio than most single engine fighters. They had twice the power and roughly twice the weight (depends on configuration etc.).
 

Power to mass is not a crucial stat for WWII fighters. Heck, I bet an empty Lancaster would get a decent power to mass ratio, even compared to a single engine fighter. It didn’t do much good.

[rkk01]

Agreed, not sure weight or thrust to weight are the principal (or only) factors.

 

One of my relatives, who sparked my interest in aviation, used to fly multi-engine aircraft...

 

He loved flying the Stirling, on the basis that it could be thrown around... I remember that he described their evasive tactics for nightfighters.  If the rear gunner spotted a fighter he would pull a wing over followed by a spiral dive to lose the fighter.

 

Something to do with wing design and wing loading - ultimately led to the Stirling’s demise as it also limited altitude.

 

He also flew the Lanc, the Mossie, and I believe on exchange the B17

[Lurker]

I'm sorry but saying that thrust to weight, or rather as you said power to mass is not crucial to WWII2 fighters is just wrong. I also never said it was the principal or only factor. Just take the dreaded and hated MW50 of the Bf109K for example, and how the plane flies or handles when using that fuel injection or when it doesn't. Or consider the Merlin powered Spitfires compared to the Griffon powered ones. Sure there were some aerodynamic changes too, but the main thing was adding more power while trying to keep the same mass (or even trying to lower it). 

It's hugely important for acceleration, climb rate and (to a lesser extent) top speed. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Lurker

[Mogster]

16 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Agreed, not sure weight or thrust to weight are the principal (or only) factors.

 

One of my relatives, who sparked my interest in aviation, used to fly multi-engine aircraft...

 

He loved flying the Stirling, on the basis that it could be thrown around... I remember that he described their evasive tactics for nightfighters.  If the rear gunner spotted a fighter he would pull a wing over followed by a spiral dive to lose the fighter.

 

Something to do with wing design and wing loading - ultimately led to the Stirling’s demise as it also limited altitude.

 

He also flew the Lanc, the Mossie, and I believe on exchange the B17

It’s surprising how attached crews seem to have become to their aircraft, even ignoring their well documented faults. I suppose there is some survivor bias at work.
 

The Short Stirling is supposed to have had truly frightening ground handling, monster ground loops on takeoff were common. I read somewhere that standard takeoff procedure was advancing the right engines only while going full rudder. You continued this way for 20 secs until some rudder authority appeared over the single tail...

[rkk01]

Yes, agreed...

but once airborne most pilot accounts are very positive about its handling - except for ceiling...

I do remember my relative’s biggest concern about the circa 10k altitude was from bombs from higher flying Lancs and Halifaxes... good reason not to get off time / route on the outbound trip...!

 

Back to the Mossie - I think he only flew it at the end of the war... most likely Pathfinders or light night raiding.  I do remember him saying how close the pilot felt to the props on the Mossie...!

 

wonder if we should expect news today???