Jump to content

Most wanted/needed aircraft for DCS WWII


tapi

Most wanted/needed aircraft for DCS WWII  

324 members have voted

  1. 1. Most wanted/needed aircraft for DCS WWII

    • Bf 109 G-6 Late
      66
    • Tempest Mk. V
      29
    • Spitfire Mk XIV (Griffon, bubble canopy)
      16
    • Fw 190 F/G-8
      6
    • A6M5 Zero
      54
    • P-38 J/L Lightning
      50
    • F6F Hellcat
      22
    • Bf 109 E
      15
    • Spitfire Mk. I/II
      6
    • Other (not mentioned) aircraft
      60


Recommended Posts

47 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.

 

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


That’s the main problem I see with modelling the 262, you have to attempt to model it’s fragile engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mogster said:

That’s the main problem I see with modelling the 262, you have to attempt to model it’s fragile engines

Axial flow compressors as used in the Jumo 004 are susceptible to surge and stall, that is why they required smooth acceleration. Compressor surge can completely destroy the engine.

 

Allies used centrifugal compressors developed from Superchargers which were more well known and whilst also susceptible to surge and less so stall they are much more robust

PC: 9980XE @ 64GB RAM /2080Ti, Samsung C49RG90

Joystick bases: VKB GFIII, FSSB R3L, Brunner CLS-E, Virpil Mongoos CM2

Joystick grips: Realsimulator (F-18CGRH, F-16SGRH-CE), VKB (MCG Pro, F-14, KG-12), Virpil Warbrd

Throttles: Virpil CM2, Kantorrin,

Other: TrackIR, TM MFDx2 (Cubesim Screenx2), Virpil Control Panel 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

 

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

 

You're falling victim to some currently very popular revisionist opinions there...

 

For one the Me262 featured a great wing, it was high AR yet very strong, as well as featuring full span automatic slats (later copied for the F-86 Sabre), greatly increasing the lift during maneuvers or when landing/taking off. The engines had issues due to a lack of high temperature metals, not any design flaw; Trial engines built with the proper materials passed several continious 100 hour tests flawelessly. The Germans came up with some ingenious solutions for cooling the compressor blades too, designing hollow blades through which cooling air was channelled, this along with a later introduced automatic throttle control to avoid surges & compressor stalls actually elevated the MTO from 10 to 25 and in the end 50 hours. Not bad for an early jet engine, esp. one built with less than ideal materials. Also don't forget the same axial flow design was chosen for the Sabre.

 

As for the Tiger tanks, again it has become very popular to bash these tanks as cumbersome, unreliable, fuel thirsty etc.. with people commenting "it would've been much better to have 4-5 Pz.IV's for every Tiger instead". None of it passes even the most simple of reality checks however. 

 

These people forget to ask themselves:

1) If the Germans barely had enough trained crews to man the tanks they already had, then how were they ever going to man twice or three times that?

2) If the  Germans didn't have enough fuel to satisfy their ~2,000 heavy tanks, then how were they gonna fuel 5 times that number of Pz.IV's ?

 

These are just two of the major stumbling blocks to the theories of the modern armchair revisionists that they completely fail to see. There's still the issue of ammunition, lubricant and spare parts logistics to be addressed as well.... the more tanks you have = the more trained crew, fuel, lubricants, ammunition & spare parts you need.

 

Hence you discover the reason is why the Germans chose to instead focus on fewer but more combat effective tanks, because it was the only solution they had any hope of supporting logistically, but even this in the end proved too much, and a large percentage of their tanks were simply abandoned after having run out of fuel, rather than taken out in action.

 

Finally the myth of the cumbersome and unreliable Tiger tank is just that, a myth. In actual fact the Tiger I & II could both negotiate terrain that a Sherman could only dream of, could neutral steer and climb steeper slopes etc.. As for reliability, by 44 the Heavy tank units had a higher readiness rate than the Pz.IV, which itself was considered a highly reliable tank. Fact is the reliability of all German motorised vehicles as a whole dropped late in the war, and that due to a lack of lubricants and spare parts, which meant every vehicle had to run a lot longer between maintenance stops and oil changes. (The Luftwaffe had the exact same problem)

 

In short, there's a logical explanation to everything if you just care to look for it. 


Edited by Hummingbird
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never mentioned design flaws with respect to the 262 engines, they were just too far ahead of their time. Metrovik had an axial flow turbojet as well, Gosters went for the centrifugal flow engine because of the same reliability issues or we'd have had reasonably similar looking Meteors  ( see here: https://postimg.cc/94hbfkP4. ) The 262 wing had a lot of advanced features but was still thick, so still had compressibility problems. Etc. I don't think I said the 262 was terrible, I just ( and always have ) don't think it's amazing. Long held opinions honestly, so long that I've probably messed up some details these days. No-one's first real effort is going to be amazing, it's not like the Meteor is particularily good either.

 

I don't want to get into a discussion of Tigers - but the germans were also mass producing Stugs instead of turreted tanks because they were quicker. Initial crewing is one issue, replacement is another ( which obviously applies to complicated aircraft too... ).


Edited by Richard Dastardly

Most Wanted: the angry Naval Lynx | Seafire | Buccaneer | Hawker Hunter | Hawker Tempest/Sea Fury | Su-17/22 | rough strip rearming / construction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Richard Dastardly said:

I never mentioned design flaws with respect to the 262 engines, they were just too far ahead of their time. Metrovik had an axial flow turbojet as well, Gosters went for the centrifugal flow engine because of the same reliability issues or we'd have had reasonably similar looking Meteors  ( see here: https://postimg.cc/94hbfkP4. ) The 262 wing had a lot of advanced features but was still thick, so still had compressibility problems. Etc. I don't think I said the 262 was terrible, I just ( and always have ) don't think it's amazing. Long held opinions honestly, so long that I've probably messed up some details these days. No-one's first real effort is going to be amazing, it's not like the Meteor is particularily good either.

 

 

The Me262 featured a higher critical mach number than any of the other early jets, so pointing that out as a limitation is abit odd IMO. The only real design flaw on the Me262 I can identify was the lack of a speed brake, something shared by all the WW2 jets. Fact is the 262 was the most advanced of the WW2 jet aircraft to go operational, and hadn't it been for the serious lack of fuel, lubricants, spare parts and trained pilots it had the potential to turn the tide in the air and stop the Allied bombing campaign. Eric "Winkle" Brown made it clear the 262 was a quantum leap, and we were lucky more resources weren't poured into the German jet program earlier.

 

Hence why so many of us are hyped about being able to fly a realistic representation of it, something which hasn't really been achieved yet, so as to see what could've potentially been achieved with it if you weren't as constrained by fuel & pilots.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

The last two planes released by ED are Allied, so I am really hoping we see an Axis plane, or two next. Does anyone know if ED has ever talked about doing a Ju 87? Like why isn't this a thing yet?

 

Once upon a time Polychop was saying they were going to do the Stuka but nothing came of it.

 

A Stuka would be a nice component for a BoB plane set.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matis said:

I would rather see WWII USSR fighters like:

Yak-3 / Yak-9

La-5 / La-7

Mig-3

 

To have more variaty in the sim, besides do not let I-16 be the only one 😄


Well according to Silver Dragon Mr Octopus is working on a follow up to his I-16. Personally I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t Russian and WW2 so…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mogster said:


Well according to Silver Dragon Mr Octopus is working on a follow up to his I-16. Personally I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t Russian and WW2 so…

Yes there are some screenshots on his facebook but unfortunately no confirmation if it really is for DCS.

https://www.facebook.com/1475030196055201/photos/pcb.2763648180526723/2763647980526743/?type=3&theater

 

Well if it is then ... bye bye money 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scenery aircraft, even if AI only.

 

Ju-52, Me-110, FW-200, He-111, etc etc.

 

C-47

 

Spotter, liason, recon aircraft.

 

All useful both in the air, and for airfield scenery and targets.

 

 

 


Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

There's a three-letter sim that has them both.

There's enough info about those airplanes around to model them.


The difference in systems modelling between DCS and other sims is vast. Nick Grey has said the Tempest II is more likely than the Tempest V presumably as there’s commonality between the Tempest II and the many flyable Centaurus powered Fury’s that exist. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love an ED Typhoon and Tempest V I just can’t see ED doing them currently.

 

However… we’ve seen that the bar for 3rd party projects is much lower. Just because ED won’t peruse these aircraft doesn’t mean that a 3rd party dev won’t.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...