Most wanted/needed aircraft for DCS WWII

[Ercoupe]

The A/B-26 Invader has been forgotten by combat flight simulator developers. And it saw combat in WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, and so many other "small" conflicts around the world.  No one has ever done this airplane. I'd love to see it.

[Mogster]

7 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

 

7 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

The A/B-26 Invader has been forgotten by combat flight simulator developers. And it saw combat in WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, and so many other "small" conflicts around the world.  No one has ever done this airplane. I'd love to see it.

the A-26 didn’t see that much use in WW2 though. PTO the crews hated it and preferred their A-20s. ETO it was supposed to replace the P47 in ground attack but CAS with such a big plane/target wasn’t a good idea. Then there were the structural problems, and over complicated remote defensive armament which tended not to work.

 

The USAAF just seems to have really liked big overly complicated stuff…

Edited September 16, 2021 by Mogster

[Peter5on]

9 hours ago, Ercoupe said:

The A/B-26 Invader has been forgotten by combat flight simulator developers.

Answer to that is simple, that plane would not sell, it doesn't matter that few fans of a plane keeps threads alive, most people would not buy it with me on top, it needs to be iconic.

 

Same thing with Bf-109G6 that is on top in the poll, but what's the point if you have K4, maybe only for singleplayer and more realistic planes set for Normandy, but then G6 comes out and then you need to wait years for other planes from same war years to fight with it.

 

Bf-110 then P-38 and some time in the future B-17.

[reece146]

For full modules, BoB, North Africa, and PTO flesh out for the incoming modules.

 

Some German equivalent of the Mossie would be good (Me. 110? Ju-88 full module?).

 

Need AI He-111 among others.

 

Also need AI Japanese assets, once delivered there might be some obvious desires for full modules.

[Krupi]

3 hours ago, Peter5on said:

Same thing with Bf-109G6 that is on top in the poll, but what's the point if you have K4, maybe only for singleplayer and more realistic planes set for Normandy, but then G6 comes out and then you need to wait years for other planes from same war years to fight with it.

The point is that technology was moving at a rapid rate in WW2, if they had given us a Emil would you still be happy to fly that in 1944/45?

 

Of course not, it is the same with the G6.

 

It is going to be very hard to get the right aircraft for the right time unless you only go for a set year, we don't have that:

Spitfire: Early 1943

P-51: Late 1944
P-47: Late 1944
109 K4: Late 1944
190 A8: Early 1944

190 D9: Late 1944

Mossie: Mid 1942

 

I am hopeful that with the release of the Anton that paves the way for 1943/early 1944 versions of the 109, P-51 and P-47.

[JimBo*]

8 hours ago, Krupi said:

The point is that technology was moving at a rapid rate in WW2, if they had given us a Emil would you still be happy to fly that in 1944/45?

 

Of course not, it is the same with the G6.

 

It is going to be very hard to get the right aircraft for the right time unless you only go for a set year, we don't have that:

Spitfire: Early 1943

P-51: Late 1944
P-47: Late 1944
109 K4: Late 1944
190 A8: Early 1944

190 D9: Late 1944

Mossie: Mid 1942

 

I am hopeful that with the release of the Anton that paves the way for 1943/early 1944 versions of the 109, P-51 and P-47.

i thiink its one of the major failings... btw you forgot the redheaded stepchild I-16.

Edited September 17, 2021 by JimBo*

[Picchio]

I'll repeat the obvious: why not just build the most coherent possible aircraft set for the chosen theater of operations? For the Channel map, are we in January-June 1944? If so (and within reasonable elasticity, I suppose... ), at least complete the theater with all the necessary AI aircraft. Personally, I'd say that I'd rather have an historically complete and coherent set (even if it's just built around a single type - or fully developed module like, say, even the upcoming Mosquito).

Does the theater-period need 109G, Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV? So be it... does that make sense?

Edited September 17, 2021 by Picchio

[hannibal]

anything with gun turrets. 

with the growing number of multiseat aircraft, recent doorgunner functionality for the UH1H helicopter,

 

please let there be a DCS module of WWII that has gunner positions..

Ju87 Stuka?

B17?

He 111 ?

Mitchell b25!!

Edited September 20, 2021 by hannibal

[Mogster]

23 hours ago, Picchio said:

I'll repeat the obvious: why not just build the most coherent possible aircraft set for the chosen theater of operations? For the Channel map, are we in January-June 1944? If so (and within reasonable elasticity, I suppose... ), at least complete the theater with all the necessary AI aircraft. Personally, I'd say that I'd rather have an historically complete and coherent set (even if it's just built around a single type - or fully developed module like, say, even the upcoming Mosquito).

Does the theater-period need 109G, Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV? So be it... does that make sense?

 

That’s a great idea in principal but it ignores the fact that some aircraft are far easier to make than others. The Tempest V and Typhoon are difficult because of rarity unfortunately, both the engines and airframe. Nick Grey has hinted at problems modelling the Sabre.
 

The Mosquito is well documented, uses relatively common Merlins. Documentation is even better now after the Broughton document find. It’d be interesting to know if ED had access too any of this newly uncovered stuff.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-40873628

Edited September 18, 2021 by Mogster

[Krupi]

23 hours ago, Picchio said:

I'll repeat the obvious: why not just build the most coherent possible aircraft set for the chosen theater of operations? For the Channel map, are we in January-June 1944? If so (and within reasonable elasticity, I suppose... ), at least complete the theater with all the necessary AI aircraft. Personally, I'd say that I'd rather have an historically complete and coherent set (even if it's just built around a single type - or fully developed module like, say, even the upcoming Mosquito).

Does the theater-period need 109G, Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV? So be it... does that make sense?

 

I do kind of agree, at least in terms of a set of starting aircraft, unfortunately that horse has already bolted! 

So now we NEED multiple versions of the same aircraft.

 

The other side of it is that aircraft design was never truly on par, designers were always improving the aircraft to meet the latest opposition and with your scenario I would not enjoy flying a 109G, not even a K4... a Tempest and a Spitfire MkXIV, no where to hide nowhere to run.

This is why you need a set of versions, because depending on what time you are looking at certain aircraft were very rare... such as the Tempest and Mk XIV.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Krupi

[Mogster]

2 minutes ago, Krupi said:

I do kind of agree, at least in terms of a set of starting aircraft, unfortunately that horse has already bolted! 

So now we NEED multiple versions of the same aircraft.

I’d hope that the aircraft we already have will enable different versions of the same aircraft. I’d imagine the Spitfire IX would make the Mk I and Mk V relatively simple to produce. I may be very wrong though…

[Krupi]

12 minutes ago, Mogster said:

I’d hope that the aircraft we already have will enable different versions of the same aircraft. I’d imagine the Spitfire IX would make the Mk I and Mk V relatively simple to produce. I may be very wrong though…

It should be the Mk IX is essentially a reengined Mk V which in turn was essentially a reengined Mk 1.

This is one reason why the Spitfires wings are weak, they had redesigned the wing structure with the Mk VII but it was still in development and there was concern of how long it would take to get into the production chain. 

 

A Spitfire Mk I, Mk V, Mk IX and finally a MkXIV would cover 1940 to 1945 and you could ignore the variants in between.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Krupi

[Mogster]

7 minutes ago, Krupi said:

It should be the Mk IX is essentially a reengined Mk V which in turn was essentially a reengined Mk 1.

This is one reason why the Spitfires wings are weak, they had redesigned the wing structure with the Mk VII but it was still in development and there was concern of how long it would take to get into the production chain. 

 

A Spitfire Mk I, Mk V, Mk IX and finally a MkXIV would cover 1940 to 1945 and you could ignore the variants in between.

 

Agree.

[Picchio]

10 hours ago, Mogster said:

That’s a great idea in principal but it ignores the fact that some aircraft are far easier to make than others. The Tempest V and Typhoon are difficult because of rarity unfortunately, both the engines and airframe. Nick Grey has hinted at problems modelling the Sabre.
 

The Mosquito is well documented, uses relatively common Merlins. Documentation is even better now after the Broughton document find. It’d be interesting to know if ED had access too any of this newly uncovered stuff.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-40873628

 

 

I understand your points; but like I said, not all types must become fully simulated modules... but they should at least be there as AI units.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Picchio

[Jakey-Poo]

On 9/15/2021 at 11:03 AM, Mogster said:

DCS Bf-110 would be very interesting.

I love the 110 (holdover from the crush I developed on the other sim), but the P-38 is the one I want most. 

[Richard Dastardly]

7 hours ago, Jakey-Poo said:

I love the 110 (holdover from the crush I developed on the other sim), but the P-38 is the one I want most. 

I think a flyable 88 might be a good thing, it's almost as multirole as the Mossie. I guess we do also have a B-17 model, but if a US heavy is going to be made the B-24 was more versatile. Are people really going to want to fly Stukas when practically anything including our flyable twin will eat them alive? I seem to remember the 88 had dive brakes as well ( someone else confirm that tho ).

 

So, no Tiffie/Tempest even though the Typhoon was in the original list? ah well. Spit XIVs are readily available to clamber over.

On 9/17/2021 at 9:23 AM, Picchio said:

Does the theater-period need 109G, Typhoon, Tempest, Spitfire Mk XIV? So be it... does that make sense?

 

Each side needs a CAS aircraft, given how much of DCS is about loitering & picking off ground units - if there's no Typhoon it's going to have to be the P-47, and the LW the 190F. We have a Mossie as a strike aircraft & nothing the other side, meanwhile to counter the 109K & 190D we have an escort fighter ( well two escort fighters ) & a 1942 vintage interceptor. And somewhere in there the Anton is waving it's hands...

 

Slight imbalances are fine in something the size of a WW2 airforce - the Spit IX & 190A found plenty of roles later on & with the size of wings of USAAF escort fighters I'm not sure how many small dogfights really happened, but in DCS where each airforce is more like 20-30 at most?  if you're going to put something in then the other side really needs it's equivalent, or it's nemesis. If we can have two 190s we can have two Spits - the XIV might look a bit like the one we have but they were reputedly very different to fight in, hugely powerful & heavy, so more a B&Z plane. How different is a 109G to a 109K?

[Mogster]

41 minutes ago, Richard Dastardly said:

I think a flyable 88 might be a good thing, it's almost as multirole as the Mossie. I guess we do also have a B-17 model, but if a US heavy is going to be made the B-24 was more versatile. Are people really going to want to fly Stukas when practically anything including our flyable twin will eat them alive? I seem to remember the 88 had dive brakes as well ( someone else confirm that tho ).

 

So, no Tiffie/Tempest even though the Typhoon was in the original list? ah well. Spit XIVs are readily available to clamber over.

Each side needs a CAS aircraft, given how much of DCS is about loitering & picking off ground units - if there's no Typhoon it's going to have to be the P-47, and the LW the 190F. We have a Mossie as a strike aircraft & nothing the other side, meanwhile to counter the 109K & 190D we have an escort fighter ( well two escort fighters ) & a 1942 vintage interceptor. And somewhere in there the Anton is waving it's hands...

 

Slight imbalances are fine in something the size of a WW2 airforce - the Spit IX & 190A found plenty of roles later on & with the size of wings of USAAF escort fighters I'm not sure how many small dogfights really happened, but in DCS where each airforce is more like 20-30 at most?  if you're going to put something in then the other side really needs it's equivalent, or it's nemesis. If we can have two 190s we can have two Spits - the XIV might look a bit like the one we have but they were reputedly very different to fight in, hugely powerful & heavy, so more a B&Z plane. How different is a 109G to a 109K?

Any large multi crew aircraft will be a massive piece of work, like 3/4 single seaters. The Mosquito is almost a single seater.
 

The 190F was the Luftwaffe strike aircraft replacing the Ju87. Rudel finished the war flying one.

 

The Ju88 was a multi crew medium bomber, not fast enough to outrun single engine opposition, dead meat without single engine escort. Not really comparable to the Mosquito which was an outlier speed wise, and speed was life.

[Richard Dastardly]

Well, yes - I don't think there really was another Mosquito ( there was a fairly close Soviet bird I forget the name of ), probably the first actually multirole aircraft. I don't think an 88 would really be much more work - the gunner stations aren't any more complicated than a Huey, unlike allied heavies with power turrets. Something like a C-6 has a solid nose too so that drops a station. Maybe down the road somewhere.

[Blackbird12]

12 hours ago, Mogster said:

Any large multi crew aircraft will be a massive piece of work, like 3/4 single seaters. The Mosquito is almost a single seater.
 

The 190F was the Luftwaffe strike aircraft replacing the Ju87. Rudel finished the war flying one.

 

The Ju88 was a multi crew medium bomber, not fast enough to outrun single engine opposition, dead meat without single engine escort. Not really comparable to the Mosquito which was an outlier speed wise, and speed was life.

It only depends on the version, of course a 88 A4 is slow but the S variants are much more faster, the s-3 could go over 600 km/h at 8500m, it has 2 Jumo 213 instead of the 211 and is lighter than the A4, the problem here is the lack of data/the work needed to get all of them.

[Mogster]

32 minutes ago, Blackbird12 said:

It only depends on the version, of course a 88 A4 is slow but the S variants are much more faster, the s-3 could go over 600 km/h at 8500m, it has 2 Jumo 213 instead of the 211 and is lighter than the A4, the problem here is the lack of data/the work needed to get all of them.

 

The S3 was low production, very late war I think.
 

Yes there were faster lighter Ju88 variants but it was never a fast manoeuvrable aircraft that could give single engine fighters the run around at least. 340 mph in the later Ju88S operational variants was better, but no way good enough. The G6 night fighter was a bit faster again, the Luftwaffe’s best NF no question.

 

None of this means I’d be resistant to a DCS Ju88 btw, we’d just be talking about a flying target, as would the B25 for the allied side.

[Lynchsl62]

26 minutes ago, Mogster said:

None of this means I’d be resistant to a DCS Ju88 btw, we’d just be talking about a flying target, as would the B25 for the allied side.

By 1944 pretty much all Luftwaffe aircraft were targets for the Allies look at the loss data 

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

The planes were largely obsolete by Allies and even Soviet standards with the exception of a few rare types such as the G-10,K-4, D-9, Ta-152, Ju-188 and of course the Ar-234 and Me-262. Pilot training was totally inadequate just feeding inexperienced pilots into the USAAF meat grinder. Of course there were experten who represented a challenge but even these were being reduced by the meat grinder. This does not even address the logistical and quality issues of fuels and materials etc. 

 

Late war planes/scenarios with the exception of the jets, Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAF will always be either unrealistic or one sided and whilst flying exotica could be fun I for one would prefer to fly ‘43 scenarios and planes when the air war was less one sided - my personal perspective 

[Mr_sukebe]

Maybe a starting point would be another overhaul of the AI logic so it’s not quite ridiculous 

[Mogster]

18 minutes ago, Lynchsl62 said:

By 1944 pretty much all Luftwaffe aircraft were targets for the Allies look at the loss data 

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

The planes were largely obsolete by Allies and even Soviet standards with the exception of a few rare types such as the G-10,K-4, D-9, Ta-152, Ju-188 and of course the Ar-234 and Me-262. Pilot training was totally inadequate just feeding inexperienced pilots into the USAAF meat grinder. Of course there were experten who represented a challenge but even these were being reduced by the meat grinder. This does not even address the logistical and quality issues of fuels and materials etc. 

 

Late war planes/scenarios with the exception of the jets, Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAF will always be either unrealistic or one sided and whilst flying exotica could be fun I for one would prefer to fly ‘43 scenarios and planes when the air war was less one sided - my personal perspective 

Agree 100%, but for some reason people only seem to want to fly late war super props. The same goes for the PTO.

[Richard Dastardly]

2 hours ago, Lynchsl62 said:

Late war planes/scenarios with the exception of the jets, Luftwaffe, RAF and USAAF will always be either unrealistic or one sided and whilst flying exotica could be fun I for one would prefer to fly ‘43 scenarios and planes when the air war was less one sided - my personal perspective 

Not sure why people really rate the jets either - the 262 ate engines ( service lifetime 9 hours if you babied it, I think? ), needed extremely careful handling & iirc while it had swept wings, the actual wing wasn't great. The Ar-234, I'll give you, albeit as a recce plane which when it appeared wasn't really much use. As a bomber it could barely carry more than a single seater.

 

People seem to love Tiger tanks too. They're awful as tanks, but well, big numbers impress...

[Lynchsl62]

41 minutes ago, Richard Dastardly said:

Not sure why people really rate the jets either - the 262 ate engines ( service lifetime 9 hours if you babied it, I think? ), needed extremely careful handling & iirc while it had swept wings, the actual wing wasn't great. The Ar-234, I'll give you, albeit as a recce plane which when it appeared wasn't really much use. As a bomber it could barely carry more than a single seater.

The P-80 engine was not that good initially either, the GE engine suffered multiple failures, Maj Bong the leading US ace was lost flying a P-80 due to engine failure. A couple of P-80 were brought to ETO but needed engine modification before going to Italy in an attempt to intercept the Ar-234 recce jets there, but we’re too late.

 

The Me-262 engines lacked the high temperature alloys required in the turbine, Nickel, Cobalt and Manganese which is why the engines only lasted a few hours before overhaul/replacement. However when employed the 262 equipped with R4M was an effective bomber killer, if they survived take off and landing. The 262 was regarded as superior to the Meteor and the P-80 in post war trials, primarily due to its stability.

 

I am not advocate of the late war jets being modelled, but they would be more balanced.