B Mk IX / PR Mk IX

[rkk01]

It would be great to get this pair in the game at a later stage

 

FB Mk VI first of course…!

 

PR I / B Mk IV / PR Mk IV would be an alternative grouping, but was thinking the Mk IX similarities might give a pair without excessive extra work?

[Bozon]

If you want a bomber mossie then for our mid-44 and later roster the B.XVI would be the most fitting. It entered service in December 1943 and replaced some of the B.IV - it was quite similar to the B.IV but better optimized for high alts with a pressurized cockpit, and could carry the 4000 lbs cookie.

[Beirut]

17 hours ago, Bozon said:

If you want a bomber mossie then for our mid-44 and later roster the B.XVI would be the most fitting. It entered service in December 1943 and replaced some of the B.IV - it was quite similar to the B.IV but better optimized for high alts with a pressurized cockpit, and could carry the 4000 lbs cookie.

 

One cookie and one Tse-Tse and that would be just perfect.

[rkk01]

B.IX could carry the 4000lbs cookie - one of the reasons I thought the B.IX / PR.IX pair might represent the sweet spot of variants vs dev work

[Tom_]

+1 from me. GIB bomber mossy. Of course after the current version is ironed out

[Bremspropeller]

 

 

You can't go wrong with cookie!

Edited September 19, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Tom_]

this just screams "GIB"

[MJDixon]

Yes please, cookies and cameras!

[Robi-wan]

On 9/19/2021 at 3:42 PM, Tom_ said:

this just screams "GIB"

 

Not quite, since GIB stands for guy in BACK. Perhaps it screams "GIN" (guy in nose) or "GOOSE" (guy operating other seat equipment).

[Barrett_g]

A working Norden bombsight would be awesome!

[rkk01]

2 hours ago, Barrett_g said:

A working Norden bombsight would be awesome!

Why would we want a US Norden sight for a British aircraft…?

 

Not sure if any USAAF Mossies were fitted with the Norden, but it didn’t find favour within the RAF.

 

Not sure what the B.IV or B.IX were fitted with, but most common RAF Bomber Command sight seems to have been the Mk.XIV… and of course the PFF Mossies used Oboe as well

[Mogster]

12 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Why would we want a US Norden sight for a British aircraft…?

 

Not sure if any USAAF Mossies were fitted with the Norden, but it didn’t find favour within the RAF.

 

Not sure what the B.IV or B.IX were fitted with, but most common RAF Bomber Command sight seems to have been the Mk.XIV… and of course the PFF Mossies used Oboe as well

There was the Sperry AVS for low level bombing also. Similar to the Sperry but with an added mechanical computer and visual aid for release below 1000ft.
 

A bit like CCIP in WW2.

[TWC_SLAG]

On 7/12/2021 at 6:35 AM, rkk01 said:

B.IX could carry the 4000lbs cookie - one of the reasons I thought the B.IX / PR.IX pair might represent the sweet spot of variants vs dev work

What would we drop a 4000lb cookie on?  Better to have a nightfighter version with a radar operator.

[rkk01]

10 hours ago, TWC_SLAG said:

What would we drop a 4000lb cookie on?  Better to have a nightfighter version with a radar operator.

Oh, I don’t know…

 

… I’m sure there’s plenty of fun to be had experimenting…

 

Would need some “big bomb” visual, sound and blast damage effects, but that’s for the good of the sim anyway

(eg, the V1 mod needs a bigger bang)

 

 

[Bozon]

13 hours ago, TWC_SLAG said:

What would we drop a 4000lb cookie on? 

Jeep.

Because there is no kill like an overkill.

[Nealius]

17 hours ago, TWC_SLAG said:

What would we drop a 4000lb cookie on?  Better to have a nightfighter version with a radar operator.

 

Tanks. With manual bombing there's no way to get a direct hit, and the only way to immobilize tanks in DCS is to outright kill them with direct hits. So....just make the bomb bigger.

[rkk01]

I’d welcome an early NF.II

 

but the clean lines if the B and PR variants show off the design in its best form

[SMH]

The bomber variant is so different I don't think there's much chance. 

A night fighter however... 

[rkk01]

34 minutes ago, SMH said:

The bomber variant is so different I don't think there's much chance. 

A night fighter however... 

 

yes and no…

 

From what I understand, the airframe is largely the same, but with the glazed nose, aero windscreen and bomber yoke / modified cockpit layout

 

And Merlin 72 engine instead of the 25…
 

Yes, that’s a lot of changes, in terms of both 3-D model and coding - BUT I can’t imagine it’s much different to the calls for different 109 / Spitfire variants…?!

 

…and I suspect just as much work would be required to roll out a NF version as well

 

 

[DD_Fenrir]

The only other variants an FB.VI "easily" becomes is a FB.XVIII (Tsetse) or an NF.XIII.

 

In both cases significant external modelling is required. In the case of the NF.XIII, internal cockpit remodelling and system simulation and 3D modelling of the AI Mk.VIII radar operators position would be necessary.

 

The bomber variants require massive cockpit re-modelling both internally and externally, with the addition of a bomb-aimer position and the attendant sight, plus the remodelling of the bomb bays internally and externally. The current powerplant model on the FB.VI would be most easily translated to a single stage Merlin bomber, which would limit you to to a B.IV as it is the only bomber variant so equipped, otherwise you have to completely remodel the external engine 3D. You could tweak the simulation of the Spitfire LF.IXs two-stage Merlin and apply that but... 

 

Anything after a B.IV were used almost exclusively at night as a strategic bomber. DCS WW2 operations is (currently) by default weighted to daylight tactical ops. There is little infrastructure or assets to make night ops a meaningful or sustainable endeavour. By all means bring them on, but in the interim a pure Bomber variant Mosquito is kind of pointless.

 

 

 

[rkk01]

Bomber and NF variants would both need considerable AI to allow swapping into special operator seat or bomb aimer seat.

 

as well as the night Ops nav eqpt etc 

[SMH]

13 hours ago, rkk01 said:

 

yes and no…

 

From what I understand, the airframe is largely the same, but with the glazed nose, aero windscreen and bomber yoke / modified cockpit layout

 

And Merlin 72 engine instead of the 25…
 

Yes, that’s a lot of changes, in terms of both 3-D model and coding - BUT I can’t imagine it’s much different to the calls for different 109 / Spitfire variants…?!

 

…and I suspect just as much work would be required to roll out a NF version as well

 

 

The cockpit layout is quite different too as the navigator's side of the front panel is mostly gone to provide access to the bomb aiming station. They'd have to re-do half the cockpit in both internal and external models. Big job!

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/WWII_tour/WWII-20.html

A night fighter is just the fighter-bomber we already have with some extra antennas on the nose and wings, flame dampers over the exhausts, and radar instruments for the navigator on the inside. I know it's a special type of DCS player who would like to operate realistic primitive radar sets, but I'm that type. (I'd even pay a few more bucks for it. Assuming the flight model issue gets worked out first.)

As for AI, I don't care. I'd be perfectly happy if you could only do it in multicrew. Would encourage the use of multicrew and forming partnerships with other pilots.

[zcrazyx]

Man I would love a B MK IX mosquito, big cookie bomb, more multi crew functionality and it would be the first dedicated bomber in dcs. Not to mention that it could be used in conjuction with FB mosquitos for attacks. the only concern i would have is with the way dcs models damage to ground targets as direct hits are more often then not needed to actually destroy a target, and of course accuracy of bombing at 25,000 ft shall not be too precise meaning buildings are probably the likely target. 

 

Would be amazing though to be able to fully utilise the performance of a mosquito at higher altitudes as from what i can gather the bomber versions were a good deal faster at altitude then the fighter bomber versions which were more suited for low altitude performance. would also be a laugh wizzing by the 109 k4s at such altitude and watching them struggle to chase. 

 

Of course the I believe that the bomber versions could bomb much lower too. though I think the introduction of a bomber sight would be most interesting from a mission planning and skill set perspective. as longer range raids could be planned accordingly. For example I fly 640nm on the 4ya aero online server and it took me two and a half hours however I only used D/F and didn't account for proper planning. 

 

I would happily pay full price for a bomber mosquito in dcs, as I understand that while being the same type of plane the actually differences are much more pronounced when researched, such as different wing, engines, fuel system, bomb capacity, windshield design etc. not to mention the systems inside of the aircraft. 

[Iron Sights]

I’ll say we need to wait and see how the progress goes with the module we have. To me, the WWII birds do need a bit more variety when it comes to versions. Many also could use a revisit just to get them more up to date. 

[zcrazyx]

12 hours ago, Iron Sights said:

I’ll say we need to wait and see how the progress goes with the module we have. To me, the WWII birds do need a bit more variety when it comes to versions. Many also could use a revisit just to get them more up to date. 

I think part of the challenge is getting people to play online with the modules, issue is the barrier to entry is rather high cost wise, especially if you consider hotas, rudder, vr/track ir, then module cost. think its around $100 alone to get onto most online ww2 servers.

I do think variety is something that counts, likely why other ww2 sims have a good player count. more toys to play with. Think that different versions of aircraft for the most part should be limited in favour of new aircraft types unless they do something new that isnt in yet. in the mossies case it would be a pure bomber aircraft. 

Differing types would help and with the introduction of the corsair and la-7 there shall be some more variety. Issue is i find is that in airquake style servers where close in knife fights are a thing is that performance is king. which i suspect is generally why the K4 is so prefevelent on the axis side. where as on the allied side we have mid 1943 aircraft to early to mid 1944 aircraft that dont get the option of running fuel grades that allow the max performance potential. 

Another thing is that I'm wondering how much profit there would be for ED in revisiting the mustang, 109 and 190 and updating the visual models as the mustang is looking rather dated externally especially compared to the ones in other sims.