Jump to content

DefaultFace

Members
  • Posts

    771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DefaultFace

  1. Its doable, Ive done it many times in the 109, Mustang and even in the Spit and 190s as well. There is some tendency to bounce but as some people have mentioned it comes from the arrangement of the wheels in relation to the cg. Whether its overmodelled or not is hard to say, but I do get the impression that at least some of this comes from the reduced "feel" & sensitivity of flying a virtual airplane on a screen or in VR as compared to being a real flying & moving airplane.

    • Like 1
  2. Would be cool, but I wouldnt necessarily say its a simple task to make it from the one we have. Its fairly well known that there are differences in stability characteristics between bubble top and razorback aircraft, on both the Jug and the Mustang. Considering that alot of the work for the 47 in DCS had to be done on CFD etc due to the scarcity of original data, its may not be as easy as one would assume to create a razorback on the basis of what we currently have in DCS.

  3. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/13-09032.pdf

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couple_(mechanics)

     

    Most of the yawing forces come from the propeller slipstream anyway. IIRC the original P-38s (not counter rotating) were quite a handful on takeoff for this reason, but it is a slightly different case as the twin boom tail means the Rudders are behind the prop discs and in the slipstream. This is less so the case for the Mossie.

     

    Anyway as others have said there is no way 2 moments acting in the same direction can cancel out. And the point through which the torque acts plays no role here.

  4. I think peoples complaint is not that you can't lock a DL target, but rather that there is no way to tell Jester to point the radar in the area of a DL contact so that you can then proceed to track & shoot at it.

    • Thanks 3
  5. 4 hours ago, mmarques said:

    Is that the Oriskany? If so, awesome to have a proper nam era carrier!

    +1 once we get the F-8 to go with it too that sounds like the starting lineup for some pretty cool missions.

  6. Im definitely not a FlaK expert, but Im not sure its necessarily as simple as just comparing calibers.... Fuzing plays a large role, and really big FlaK also doesnt necessarily need to hit a target to do damage, just explode in the vicinity.

     

    A quick google search shows that at least for German 3,7cm FlaK similar ammo the the airborne cannons existed (HE, Incendiary, Mineshells etc).

     

    I also couldnt find any photos of a fighter sized aircraft that took a direct hit from FlaK in a relatively central area and made it back. Was by no means an exhaustive search though.

  7. Theres not really anything to deflect. Im sure it will be added in due time as a kneeboard option, like was done for some of the more modern aircraft with armament configurations that can't be done from the cockpit.

     

    Its just silly to paint it as some sort of gross injustice against you, like theres some sort of hidden agenda.

  8. There is plenty of test data to suggest its not accurate, no speculation necessary. The British and american ones are publically available, at least to some extent, and Im sure the German tests from Rechlin are out there somewhere as well.

     

    Of course I could post some quotes here or there from some excited 109 pilots about having destroyed a Thunderbolt in one shot but why bother when there is test data available.

     

    It also does not take a rocket scientist to look at the photos above and see why that amount of structural damage would most likely be lethal more or less independently of where it hits. Maybe on a wingtip or some other extremity a hit like that would be survivable, but at most other locations a mineshell would either destroy, or seriously cripple a fighter.

  9. LW have had delayed fuses for years, but the Allied side not allowed them. Speaks volumes and not so good if you are a customer for the Spit, P51, P47 and the upcoming Mosquito. Great if you own LW aircraft, but I don't as I am not a fan of those aircraft. I suggest that 'at this stage' we should have had historical delayed fuses for the Allied aircraft as well. The neglected detail and functionality of the Allied aircraft in this respect is disappointing, to day the least!

     

    Others may be content with this consistent capability deficit that we have put up with for years, for the Allied side only, but I find it less than impressive and rather odd as it gives the impression that the development team are not bothered.

     

    Happy landings,

     

    56RAF_Talisman

     

    Yes the German Bias is clear. This is obviously a concentrated effort to handicap the spitfire, greatest aircraft that ever flew, and keep you from winning that war that ended 80 years ago.....

     

    Or you know they just got to it for the germans since there is a button for it in the cockpit. :megalol:

     

    Seriously if someone came up with theories like this for the opposite side they would be bombarded with shouts of luftwhiner and crybaby left and right. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory.

  10. With the lack of news recently about the Mosquito, I thought I'd throw a bit of speculation/wishful thinking out here....

     

    Now we have the P-47 released into EA (loving it BTW) and the fantastic Channel Map too, I wonder if next up on ED's EA release schedule will be our loooong and eagerly awaited Mosquito FB Mk VI? If we do get a release this year, and the new damage model for the WW2 aircraft to boot, this would be a great year for DCS WW2. A great distraction from what is sadly happening in the real world.

     

    What do you guy's think?

     

    Nick Grey mentioned end of Autumn in the comments of a livestream around the channel release. But EDs release dates are usually a little optimistic, and thats for the ones officially annonced and for specific days. Not to mention the focus on bugfixing right now so I would say probably early next year is more realistic.........

  11. Really depends on range. The further away, the less the low guy has to really follow anything you're doing and more just needs to adjust aim slightly. Not to mention the problem of deflection shooting goes away with a very slow or stationary target.

     

    And if the low fighter is close enough that they have to follow your maneuvers exactly then you probably don't have an energy advantage either :smilewink:

     

    Lets say even then that you manage to make it to the top of your Zoom without eating Hispano for breakfast, and are now a few hundred metres above a spitfire what are your options to turn it offensive? You can try to do some sort of hammerhead (very difficult in DCS) or flatten your zoom into a low speed spiral climb/turn near the top, and try to get an angle to turn in on him for a gun shot. Not so easy to do, especially against a spit IX, which has excellent P/W ratio and low speed maneuverability, undoubtedly better than whichever energy fighter you just tried to zoom away from him in. So now you are slightly above an airplane that turns much better and will accellerate/climb better at the top/endof the zoom than you, trying to fly your high wingloaded Energy fighter at minimum speed in the hopes of a chance at a very small window for a high deflection snapshot. In my experience this usually doesnt work in DCS, and ends in you trying to dive away again. For whatever reason it works much better in the other WW2 sim, probably has to do with easier gunnery, and low speed control effectiveness in that sim/game.

     

    So even to try it you should probably be at extremely high speed to begin with, which probably means you should have some altitude to start a dive before you zoom as well.

     

    Not sure if a high speed climb isnt the better option in the end. There are more options to turn it offensive, to get help from a teammate, or to simply disengage (without being vulnerable at the top of a zoom as you would be otherwise) as well. This video shows an example of how to do something like this..... Once again easier in that game than in DCS though.

     

    Back when the spit was released you could kill them with a zoom climb, but that was mostly because most people fried the Merlin while hanging on the prop at full power :lol: Has been patched out since then though :)

     

  12. Well the problem is a small advantage in this area is hard to make use of. Even if you come out 200m above and 50 Km/h faster than your opponent at the top of a zoom, he can still be shooting the whole way up. Not to mention any sort of rolling or jinking on the way up and the margin decreases even more. Really you need significant separation to start with as well.

  13. The thunderbolt should certainly not have anywhere near the same accident rate on landings as the 109 (which is a separate and complicated story in and of itself as to why the accident rate was the way it was).

     

    Bouncing usually means you touched down with too much excess airspeed, and when entering 3 point position the aircraft still generates too much lift, or you hit the ground too hard on touchdown. Mostly its practice but sometimes its helpful in the last moments before touchdown to stare at point on the horizon instead of somewhere closer, it can help with judging sinkrate during flare/touchdown. Also the Mustang at least is much more prone to bouncing in 2 point landings with higher fuel loads compared to almost empty.

×
×
  • Create New...