Jump to content

Andrew8604

Members
  • Posts

    202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Andrew8604

  1. The link above, shared by drPhibes, leads to Wags' answer, with enumerated reasons. That looks like that's the final answer. I speculate that modeling all that detail into the City of Las Vegas...which a lot of people enjoy...cost the inclusion of NAS Fallon and NAS China Lake. But Nellis AFB is so close to Las Vegas that they couldn't ignore it. Based on the constraints mentioned by Wags, I can't think of any good solution. What if minimum PC RAM requirements was increased from 8GB to 16GB? Or have they been already? I run a machine with 32GB. Some 3rd party might (that's a wildly speculative "might") make a retro version of NTTR Map, that includes NAS Lemoore, Edwards AFB, China Lake NWC, in a 1967 setting, in which Las Vegas is much smaller and with fewer large buildings, maybe. Nellis and Indian Springs (Creech) AFB would still be there. That would then be the training area for the F-4(?) Phantom II, F-105D Thunderchief (which someone just has to develop sometime this decade), A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, F-8J Crusader (all in development), and very slim "hopefully" for the F-100D Super Sabre. The F-100 shares a lot of cockpit similarities with the F-86F, I think. Likewise, maybe a 3rd party might make a "Great Basin" map that would include NAS Fallon, Mountain Home AFB, Hill AFB and the Salt Lake City area, as well as Boise and Reno... and all that open range in between. A 340nm x 420nm area. But I very much doubt that will ever happen. And if ED had made this Great Basin map instead of NTTR, everyone would now be complaining about why Nellis AFB, Groom Lake and Tonopah Test Range wasn't included. We're never satisfied! The grass is always greener on the other side of the mountain...except in the desert. Is ED perhaps working on global scenery? Did I see rumors of that?
  2. Thank you, Toan! I'll have a look at the Fletcher, right away! And I didn't realize USS Bowen was a Knox-class. I downloaded it, just haven't run DCS since to have a look at it. Awesome! It could be that a list or index of ships under "Mods" might be useful. That way we can make sure we get all that's out there.
  3. Request: WWII Fletcher-class destroyer (1944-45) WWII Sumner-class destroyer (1944-45) WWII Cleveland-class light cruiser (1944-45) WWII Suamico-class oiler/tanker (1944-45) ...or similar (These would go along nicely with the WWII Essex-class carrier that's supposedly being made for the F4U Corsair.) FRAM II Sumner-class destroyer (1965-71) Gearing-class destroyer FRAM I (1960's-70's) Knox-class frigate - w/Sea Sparrow (1970's) and w/Phalanx (1980's) Wichita-class fleet oiler - (1970's-80's) ...you can't have too many classic ships!
  4. Andrew8604

    ships

    Enough to somewhat replicate "Battle of Midway" and "Battle of Philippine Sea" scenarios. The Marianna's map can provide the setting well enough. But a 1942-era Midway map would be good, too...nothing but the Midway Islands and as many hundreds of miles(km) of open ocean as can be accommodated. That's just gotta be faster to produce than Marianna's was!! Well, there are a few other tiny uninhabited islands within a 400-nm radius of Midway...probably just sand. So, 800nm across the map, if possible. The main purpose for the large expanse of ocean is to emphasize the difficulty in finding the opposing battle group. Perhaps this map could provide for some advanced weather modeling, too...with towering cumulous thunderstorms and rain squalls...and high, mid and low layers of clouds. Another aspect might be carrier flight deck management. Carriers generally had to have their aircraft moved around and "spotted" on the deck for launch vs. recovery. I think this carrier sea-battle could be done pretty well with... On the USN side: The Yorktown class carrier (Essex-class carrier already being made) Two classes of heavy cruiser: New Orleans-class (early: for Yorktown) and Baltimore-class (late: for Essex) Two classes of light cruiser: Brooklyn-class (early: for Yorktown) and Cleveland-class (late: for Essex) Two classes of destroyer: Fletcher-class (early: for Yorktown) and Sumner-class (late: for Essex) North Carolina-class and South Dakota-class battleship (if users opt to use them, mainly for Essex-class carrier groups). Older battleships were too slow to operate with a carrier battlegroup. At the Battle of Midway, the USN had no battleships available. On the IJN side: (The difficult part, as IJN had several one-off carriers that varied considerably in design.) Carriers: Maybe just concentrate on a couple of these 6 designs: Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku-class and Unryu-class carriers. Heavy cruiser: Myoko-class, Takao-class and/or Mogami-class Light cruiser: Agano-class Destroyers (there were about 17 classes). How about just: Fubuki-class (24 built), and the "Type-A" classes; Kagero-class (19 built) and Yugumo-class (19 built)? Yamato-class battleship (everyone's going to want this) and Kongo-class battle-cruiser. These were the faster battleships that might escort carrier groups. Of course, we users could mix and match as we wish.
  5. I'd like the Rafale M. We need more carrier planes! I know Crusaders and Rafales would never fly off the same carrier...but in DCS they could. Could they let us have the Super Etendard, too? Si'l vous plait? I know the answer: No, you English speaking pig-dogs. You animal food-trough wipers. No submarines, no planes. Now go away! Rafales and Hornets off the Nimitz, in Australian RAN markings! And even Tomcats! What could have been.
  6. I believe that's true. But we don't necessarily have to follow history exactly in these maps. They're good for "what if" scenarios...to a limit. My idea of a "what if" is to have opposing carrier forces. What if the UK still had its CATOBAR carriers with F-4K's and Buccaneers? And what if Argentina had picked up a surplus Essex-class ship with Crusaders and Etendards and with anti-submarine and guided missile escorts of the 60's, such as the USS Boston CAG-1 and Canberra CAG-2, and Galveston CLG-3? And what if they had land-based AJS-37's? Well, we don't have most of those in DCS. Wouldn't it be interesting if we did, someday?
  7. Yep. Most seem to want the latest and greatest...to which I say, "Go for it!"
  8. To the best of my knowledge, the "long hull" and "short hull" Essex class carriers had the same size hull below the waterline. Long hull vs short hull is really a misnomer. A more correct name would be "long bow" and "short bow". The original short bow carried only a single quad-mount 40mm AA battery that was limited in upward vision due to the overhanging flight deck. It had more of a 'cargo ship' bow. The long bow carriers had a widened and extended bow that formed more of a clipper bow and provided room for two quad-mount 40mm guns. The flight deck was actually shortened a bit to allow the 40mm mounts and director a better view of the sky. So your so-called "long hull" actually had a slightly shorter flight deck. And at some point, even the "short bow" Essex, CV-9, was modified with the long bow and two quad 40mm mounts. So will it matter if they make a "short bow" or "long bow"? I don't think so, really. Don't worry. Just having an authentic Essex-class carrier in a late-WWII configuration is the main thing. Sounds like they'll get it right. It's going to be fine. I think a previous post, back several pages, illustrated the original Essex armament. Long bow ships mounted more quad 40mm mounts on the port and starboard sides, besides the extra one on the bow. They might have had two quad-mounts on the stern, too. As short bow ships returned for yard work, they were supplemented with additional quad 40mm mounts to improve their AA defenses like the long bow ships. When these Essex-class carriers (long and short bow) were modified with an angled flight deck in the 1950's, the "hurricane" bow was fitted which blended and enclosed the bow right up to the flight deck. All the 40mm and 20mm guns were removed, but some of the open-mount 5-inch guns remained. The islands were usually modified, too, which removed the twin-mount 5-inch turrets. The two C-11 steam catapults were added to 7 of the ships and improved arresting gear and strengthening of the flight deck and other needed improvements for operating jets. Most of the others received a pair of H-8 (I think) hydraulic catapults, suitable for propeller-driven aircraft like the A-1 Skyraider, S-2 Tracker, E-1 Tracer and the A-4B Skyhawk...the only time Skyhawks carried Sidewinder missiles in US Navy service, I believe. They were the detachment of "fighters" to defend those carriers and their anti-submarine aircraft.
  9. I'm all for that! French carriers and British carriers. We already have the Russian carriers. Other countries used carriers they bought from France or UK, right? Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and India...I might be missing some...Italy, maybe. of course, Japan, South Korea and China have built new carriers. I'd like to see the British Illustrious-class Victorious, the Audacious class Eagle and Ark Royal... or at least Ark Royal. As well the "Harrier" carriers. And also the French Clemenceau class (one of which was used by Brazil) and the Charles De Gaulle. And India's modified Kiev-class carrier and their new Vikrant. But there are so many ships and planes and helos we all want. There just aren't enough available programmers, 3D artists and researchers to make them fast enough. Progress is very slow, unfortunately. What we do have is incredibly detailed! But nobody had more carriers or used them to greater effect and extent than the US...by a wide margin...nor had so many types of naval aircraft. Imperial Japan, during WWII was 2nd. That's the fact. So there should be a lot of US carriers. All I see in DCS is the Nimitz-class carriers. Only 5 of the 10 (in 3 subclasses) are covered...and I'm not saying they all should be. And I see the Tarawa class LHA amphibious assault 'carriers'. That's two classes. I think they just put different numbers on the same 3D model and call it a different carrier. I hear that someone is making, or has made, a Forrestal class. Also being made is an Essex class in WWII configuration, for the F4U-1D Corsair. I'd like to see an Essex class carrier as modified with angled flight deck and used in the 60's and early 70's...because the F-8 Crusader and A-4 Skyhawk operated extensively from them. What is also missing are the proper escort ships: cruisers, destroyers and frigates. We have a good set of modern US ships and Russian ships, but not the US WWII ships, nor the IJN ships of WWII. And I don't know how or when we'll ever get them.
  10. Yep, there they are, F-4S Phantom II's. I'm pretty sure that's a "68" on the forward deck and not a "66", so yes, Nimitz. Yes, I would say some RF-8's probably operated from it, too. Must have been a short time where the ship was ready but the F/A-18A's were not, and maybe not enough F-14A's? And still some F-4S squadrons existing, waiting for Hornets. I think the F-4N's (reworked F-4B's) still operated from Coral Sea and/or Midway, too, into the early 80's. Ha... I remember watching an F-18L (I think it was...Navy's prototype from the YF-17) perform at an airshow about that time. And an RF-8G would open the show by performing an afterburner vertical loop over NAS Miramar, popping out photoflash canisters in the clear, blue sky. They made quite a bang and a flash and puff of smoke...about 16 to 20 of them. Of course the afterburner made a crackling thunderous roar, too. I can't find any videos of that. They must have been mostly like fireworks, I don't remember it 'raining' any debris from them. At the time, I had no idea that they were the 'flashbulbs' for aerial cameras...actually, I'm not 100% sure they were...I think they were. I wonder if there were some places they photographed at night where exploding AAA shells fulfilled the roll of photoflash canisters.
  11. Well, Wikipedia articles could be wrong. Yes, I agree. Why the Skywarrior and not Phantoms or Intruders? Skywarrior MTOW ~ 80,000lbs. F-4B ~ 58,000lbs. A-6A Intruder < 60,000lbs. But landing weights are different. Maybe it had to do with landing speeds at landing weight and the capacity of the arrestor gear to bring them to a stop. Maybe the size of the tires, too? I don't think I buy those explanations, either. And if the Phantoms couldn't operate from the Essex class, I imagine the A-5 Vigilante couldn't, either. Here's a picture of the Oriskany with a Skywarrior, wings folded, near the starboard elevator. Looks like Crusaders, Corsair IIs and a Grumman E-1 Tracer, on deck, also. So must be a '68 to '72 era photo.
  12. At first I didn't think too much of this idea. But this might not be such a bad idea. Pretty good size. Not overly detailed cities, I presume. Lots of desert terrain. Not many trees. On the Mediterranean Sea! Probably would not be so tough on HD space? A good air/sea/land battle playground, maybe? Then, again, shift these lines to the east...maybe Egypt, including part of the Mediterranean, the Sinai Peninsula, the Red Sea, southern Israel, western Jordan and western Saudi Arabia would be good. This would include the Suez Canal and possibly the Great Pyramids. Probably a lot more interesting...but probably larger on HD space.
  13. I know this Crusader should be fine from Nimitz-class carriers, but I don't know that F-8's (or F-4 Phantoms) ever operated from them. They operated from Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes of supercarriers (and the Midway's). But I sure think it would be neat to operate the Crusader it from an angled-deck, Essex-class carrier. There would two subgroups of the 7 Essex-class carriers modified with steam catapults and angled flight decks. The first group of Intrepid, Ticonderoga and Hancock differed mainly in having the right (starboard), deck-edge elevator quite far aft. The second group of Lexington, Bon Homme Richard, Oriskany and Shangri-La had the starboard elevator substantially more forward, just aft of the island. Of course, I would be thrilled just to have the Oriskany. But with two models, they could just put the numbers 11, 14 & 19 on the first model and 16, 31, 34, & 38 on the second model. I'm sure there were minor differences between the individual ships of the 7, just as there were minor changes in armaments and antennas of each ship between yard periods. I think just the two elevator differences and their nominal radars and armaments configuration during the mid-1960's would be good enough. These 7 Essex-class carriers filled in until more supercarriers could be built, but the F-4 Phantom and A-6 Intruder were too heavy for the Essex ships, so the lighter F-8's and A-4's did the job on these ships. The F-8J would be perfect from these ships, along with the A-4E-C Skyhawk. Then maybe some pretty well detailed AI versions of the EKA-3B Skywarrior (tanker), E-1A Tracer (AEW) and SH-3A or D Sea King (or SH-2 Seasprite) helicopters and it should be all set! And when the A-7E comes along, we'll be able to add that to these ships, too. (It was actually the A-7A & B on these ships...but close enough.) So, hopefully, the F4U Corsair and the WWII Essex, plus this version of the Essex-class when the F-8J comes out! I can hope, anyway. We'll see what happens. Money in hand, waiting for the F-8J !
  14. Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then. The sim has apparently reached its end. I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along. I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult. I'll get off the forum.
  15. I can appreciate that it is a lot of work...a lot of work...to make these modules. Exactly how much and how difficult it is to modify them, I don't know. Unless I participate in making some of them, I can't entirely know. I just know it's a lot and we pay very little for the incredible detail and authenticity. I almost giggle to myself every time when I put on the VR goggles and sit in the cockpit with the canopy open. I can't believe how realistic it all looks!! I was surprised that Heatblur gave that 2nd F-14 for free. But I also don't understand who makes these modules and how much money they make for creating them. Are they basically volunteers, or do they get somewhat compensated for their time? I don't know how many copies DCS sells. 1,000? 10,000? But how many years of work did they put into the F-14B, for example? But, too, there must be some commonality and experience gained with each module that can benefit making another. Coding, for instance. Each module must have sections of code that can be reused on other modules...no?
  16. "Shares" is probably not the right term to use. I didn't mean like an investment that's going to pay dividends. The only "return" on the "investment" would be the personal joy of flying a well done module. And no, I did not mean a reduction in quality. They would still have to meet the highest standards.
  17. But, if a developer has gone to all the effort to make an F-4E, for instance, is it really that much more work to make the F-4D, or the F-4B? (maybe just those three, right there, E, D & B). There are similarities in panels, in systems, in 3D model, in flight model. The F-4 Phantom is a rare plane that I think needs several versions. First do the F-4E, like so many people want, but then a US Navy version, the B or the J. But the B is very similar to the C, so might as well sell the B & C together. The J is probably quite similar to the D, so might as well sell them together. OR maybe it makes more sense for C&D and B&J. I would be one of those people who would buy them all. I just don't see how after building an F-4E, building an F-4B would be like starting entirely from scratch. We have the F-14B and the F-14A+. Now, with something like the F-100 Super Sabre (if that should ever get built), I would say only the D model, possibly the F model as a "Wild Weasel". But possibly skip it if an F-105F or G is going to be made. I see no need for the C and A variants. The systems of the F-100 shouldn't be much more complicated than the F-86F. Some of the instruments and panels of the F-86F appear in the F-100, I believe. There is definite similarities. For the F-105, again, the D variant would be the main one. I see no reason to make the B variant. Again, they modified the two-seat F-105F for "Wild Weasel" role. And then came the F-105G, dedicated "wild weasel", which I think was updated F-105F's. The "D" is the main one. Anyway. we'd be very lucky just to get an F-4E, at this point. But I do see your point, too. I'd like to see the F-86D. So, much like the F-86F, but different wing, different stabilizer, engine with afterburner, different nose, longer fuselage...lots of differences, almost a new plane...it would have been called the F-95A, but US Congress wouldn't fund a new plane so they kept it F-86 "D". And I'd like the F-102A or the F-106A, as well...single-seat interceptors for us old single-player fans. There could be a whole series of classic interceptors...but not likely popular with the young folks. It would take a very dedicated and determined volunteer developer. Just not likely to ever happen, though. Too bad. The Lightning would be one of these. The MiG-19 and MiG-21 are of this group...and we have them. I have more of a liking for the American planes, though. I understand their instruments better. The Navy F4D-1 (F-6A) Skyray would be another of this class.
  18. So, how about a $149, flyable B-52D, for the Vietnam Map? Too expensive, you say? Not if it has good AI crewmembers, well scripted with procedures and realistic voices. And if it has very realistic vintage radar displays and full-functioning systems. 7 Crew positions that could be occupied by Players or AI crewmembers. So, you could fly it by yourself, as you can an F-14. Or, fly it with 2 to 6 other online players, not that 4 to 7 players would ever coordinate to do that, as most everyone wants to fly it. It could be one heck of a simulation, though. No need to jump all over me. I know it probably has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. But it could be damned cool viewed in VR! Might have to have a $449 price tag. A lot of people pay that much for a Warthog joystick. How much did you pay for your computer...which is dull and boring without DCS? You want the module, or not? What this sim needs is a financial model where players start buying "shares" in a potential module. Maybe DCS holds the funds, or some other independent agent does. A developer then offers to build the module. As they meet progress deadlines, they receive a portion of the funds up to about 60%. When they finish the module, they receive the remainder of the funds and future sales. If they don't meet certain deadlines early on, they receive no more funds and the remaining funds are refunded to the players. After the module is released, it is sold at a typical module price, so that sales might be sufficient. The original investing players would end up paying the most. That might not seem fair, except that the module would not exist if they didn't. You want a particular aircraft, say the above B-52D, enough of you have to pay up front. Some might pay $1,200 or more...if they really want that module. But $1,200, alone won't do it. But there could be a hundred or more that might invest $25 to $150. If a module starts to gain funding, a person could invest more and accelerate its funding. If after a couple years there is very little additional investment and the module is not being built, then the player has the option to withdraw funds and place them in a different module, if they wish. Something like this. Just a rough idea. Needs refinement. Think it would work? We have to come up with something because module production is too slow. A Vietnam Map is not very interesting without an F-4 Phantom, F-105 Thunderchief, A-6 Intruder, A-1E & A-1H Skyraider, HH-3 Jolly Green, F-100 Super Sabre and the B-52.
  19. NTTR fly 245 mag from Las Vegas for 125NM and you arrive at China Lake NWS airfield. From up at 20,000-35,000 feet it looks okay. But down low, it's very apparent it has low res texture...its just a satellite picture, no details. For a Vietnam Map, no one "should" fly low level from Takhli or Korat Air Bases in Thailand to North Vietnam. Would burn too much fuel down there. So that terrain could be of lower detail texturing, I would think. Does that save any gigabytes on map size? I don't understand what really does use up the GB's. For that matter, why couldn't the poly level be the same as NTTR or Normandy? If there's a will, there's a way. Well, the topic said they wanted to hear our ideas for a new map in DCS. I don't know if the request is truly from a map developer, but I and several others expressed our wishes for the Vietnam map. That's all we can do. Hear us, or don't. But there was a substantial amount of air combat activity that took place in that area of the globe from 1965 to 1972, including a little operation called Linebacker II that involved 129 B-52's in the air at one time on a bombing mission! And included land-based, island based and carrier-based aircraft. Then I would guess North/South Korea would be of similar size and not possible, either. How about a Maple Flag map, up by Cold Lake, Alberta/Saskatchewan, Canada? That might be about 300 x 300 NM...but like NTTR, excludes naval operations. Other than that, people's ideas are all over the place. Gulf of Sidra?...because there were a few incidents and Operation Eldorado Canyon there? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. Those are the big three...and they are big...I think people have had enough of desert, though. The developer will have to choose what they want to do. That's my tiny opinion.
  20. Been flying the F-86F in DCS 2.7x. It sure is sweet. Would sure love to fly an F-100D in DCS. I look at pictures of the real F-100D cockpit and there is a lot of similarity to the F-86F. It's got the F-5E's guns, but four of them, instead of two. If someone ever makes a Vietnam map, the F-100D has got to be made for it.
  21. For the 1960's portion of the Vietnam War (Rolling Thunder), I believe it was the Navy F-4B and Air Force F-4C that saw the most usage. The F-4D, E, and J seem to have mostly been used 1970-72. So, I'd vote mainly for an F-4B (similar to the F-14 in crew functions - Pilot/RIO) and the F-4C (differing from the F-4B in that the WSO (back seat) I believe had flight controls, too. These two versions had to have seen the most use. But most people will go for the F-4E because it has the "internal" gun and can deliver laser-guided bombs...and maybe because it had 'maneuvering' slats. I still prefer the F-4B/C....along with F-105D and A-4E that they often escorted or provided CAP for.
  22. Vietnam Map, circa 1967. I think this illustration (attached) from the Internet describes pretty well what needs to be mapped. High details in about a 7nm radius around airbases in Thailand, northern South Vietnam and in all of the Route Pack IV, V & VI areas of North Vietnam. Medium levels of detail in the areas of Thailand and Laos in between the airbases and North Vietnam. Low levels of detail in adjacent areas. I think this would provide sufficient detail for missions from the historical airbases in Thailand and from carriers at Yankee Station in the South China Sea, to historical targets in North Vietnam. I think this map would be best because it historically involved many types of aircraft and many types of missions. The players are always free to use whatever aircraft and ground forces they want, of course...as they can do on any map. Plenty of Air-to-air, air-to-ground, land-based and carrier-based missions...almost everything involving in-flight refueling. However, this map needs some more aircraft modules... Chiefly... the F-105D Thunderchief and the F-4B & C Phantom II. Also, the F-100D(or F) Super Sabre, a full version of the A-4E Skyhawk, the MiG-17F, and the A-1E Skyraider...would all be nice. Modules needed as AI aircraft: KC-135A (just retro-engine the -135R), KA-3D, HH-3E "Jolly Green" Modules already in existence: MiG-21 & MiG-19, F-5E, UH-1H ...even if not the correct versions of these aircraft. Resources in existence: zu-23-2, zsu-57, (WWII 88mm flak guns to stand in for 85mm and 100mm AAA), and the SA-2 SAM and radar systems. Modules in development (apparently): F-8J Crusader & A-7E Corsair II. Again...these aircraft would be ideal for scenarios in the time of the Vietnam War. But any aircraft could be used, of course.
  23. What made that so? I think the maker of the Falklands Map said open ocean on a map is not free. I'd like to understand why a 500nm x 500nm map with no land at all would task PC resources. On the NTTR Map there are surrounding areas of low-detail terrain that look ok from high altitude but not from low altitude. Does that save on resources? If so, can a large area map have a medium detail corridor between two high detail areas? Would that save on PC resources?
  24. The video says it is slower than "fly-away takeoff", but a good catapult team should be able to launch aircraft at 45-second intervals. I think they only launched the first few by catapult and then there would be deck space for fly-away takeoffs, depending on sufficient wind over the deck. So, the deck would be loaded for a mission. These escort carriers were about 500 feet long and capable of only about 19 knots. Would probably set speed for 12 knots and turned into a 7-knot wind, for instance would give them about 19 knots wind-over-deck. I don't know what the nominal wind-over-deck was. There was probably a range with min and max. Too much wind might make deck handling difficult? In this training video, that officer on the island said there wasn't enough wind for fly-away takeoffs and that they'd have to use the catapult (those carriers only had one). They carried 9 Avengers and 18 Wildcats, full load. In the video, those are FM-1 Wildcats, which are General Motors license-built F4F-4's with only four 50-cal guns instead of six. So they would place maybe 6 Avengers aft on the flight deck, wings folded, 4 abeam. Then spot maybe 10 Wildcats in front of them, wings folded, and a couple Wildcats at the front of the pack with wings extended. Might not be enough deck space for a fly-away takeoff, so the first 3 to 5 Wildcats would be catapulted. After that, the remaining Wildcats might be able to make the fly-away takeoffs in quicker succession. And then the bigger, heavier Avengers would make the fly-away takeoffs....deck cleared...6 Wildcats and 3 Avengers below on the hangar deck. Those could be brought up for fly-away takeoffs, if needed. So, the catapults likely weren't used to launch every plane. Although, in the video they did because there wasn't enough wind. When the planes returned, they would make arrested landings and be quickly taxied forward, wings folded and spotted at the very front of the flight deck. Other aircraft were then taken below on the forward elevator, down to the hangar deck. The carrier would either be in launch mode or recovery mode. Could not launch and recover simultaneously. Once all aircraft were recovered, they would be moved aft by the deck crews to get ready for the next mission, rearmed and refueled. Those needing servicing were likely taken below to the hangar deck and replacements brought up to the flight deck. There's another, related video on YouTube showing the recovery process. If an aircraft returned to the carrier while it was not "spotted" for recovery, it would have to circle and wait, or if in emergency, either recover on another carrier, land on an airfield, bail out or ditch. As there is a DCS module called Supercarrier, there should probably also be a module called WWII Carrier. (I know there probably never will be, though).
  25. Rudel, Are you going to release a WWII-era Essex-class carrier to go with your F4U Corsair? If so, any chance of a Fletcher-class destroyer and a Cleveland-class cruiser to go with it, for escorts? Or do they need to be made by ED, or whoever made those detailed Perry-class frigates and Ticonderoga-class cruisers?
×
×
  • Create New...