vanir

We call the series Air Crash Investigations over here but I think it's released in the US as Mayday: Air Disaster. Excellent series, for the most part fills one with respect for all the terrific minds and attitudes in the industry but also tends to make one a touch nervous about the company policies and regional deficiencies in some aspects of the industry, where public safety comes second to shareholder returns. It displays both responsible professionalism and a complete lack of any professionalism or responsibility all mixed within the same industry. Get on the right plane and safety is as advertised, get on the wrong one that looks just the same and all concept of safety is deliberately treated like a complete joke for an expendable public to play out the punchline. Welcome to commercial aviation. The 787 I took from Melbourne to Singapore was terrific. I'm a bit of a technical guy and felt immediately confident when I heard the engines spool for take off and how smooth and tight they sounded mechanically. This was obviously either a brand new aircraft or one that's maintained in brand new condition. A great flight. The A320 to Phuket was a completely different kettle of fish, my palms were sweating the whole flight. Bearing noise, rattling, a metallic scraping whine, terrible vibration all the way through take off and climb and until about 20mins into cruise. Where the 787 I'd have given a generous 0.01% chance of engine failure, these engines I gave a solid 15% chance at least one would roll back along the way. These engines are not supposed to sound like that or vibrate like that. It's obviously a very heavily overworked, short haul aircraft bought used from a major operator by a regional airline and my impression, given how common this story is described by the aforementioned series is they just run it until it breaks, don't maintain anything, don't spend anything on it, falsify necessary paperwork and scrap it when it can't fly anymore, fingers crossed that it didn't kill anyone getting there. But they do. It's not so much just the engines that had me concerned but if the engines are that badly in need of a complete tear down maintenance and still flying, how bad are the rest of the vital airbus systems? In one episode of ACI/Mayday a regional Asian airbus operator simply refused to overhaul a computer fault which crews had consistently reported for more than a year before the aircraft crashed and killed everyone on board. Investigators discovered it was a broken solder (which began a chain of events leading to the crash). But y'know they wanted to keep it operating constantly with no down time for repairs or maintenance and essentially pressure ground crews to falsify paperwork and aircrews to put up and shut up, which isn't difficult because they clearly hire cheap labour on both counts anyway, I think less because of wages which doesn't actually amount to much even if you doubled those, but because less competence means less confidence so less arguments when something is wrong. You can put an idiot in charge if he keeps a low bar on the employees and the idiot still feels superior, because the bar is so low. Kind of a statement about all employment industries there, investment, ie. money starts a business, not qualification so bosses have no requirement whatsoever to be in any way qualified to be in charge, but are. You do get awesome owners/bosses, Lauda Air, that guy breathed professionalism and personal responsibility. Many major operators simply can't afford the stocks hit of a bad reputation, so give it a shot at least. But man, some of these regionals scare me not just by implication from tv documentaries but now from personal experience. I wanted to tell the flight crew their engines on that A320 were rooted. I wouldn't drive a car with an engine that sounded like that without knowing I'll be calling a tow truck. And as mentioned the associated concern is how bad are the rest of the systems? Really needed to vent that. I don't have a lot of people to talk to and it kept kicking around my head. I love flying but that was terrifying.

My great wish was for the Luftwaffe ICE version with the Hornet's radar/fc set, for more contemporary mission building. I'm usually building 90s missions to suit the bulk of pre-existing FC/DCS traffic, Tomcats, Hornets, Flanker-B, Mirage-2000, as opposed to older periods or newer where most of the traffic environment isn't modelled yet or is too classified to be modelled seriously. I suppose I'm looking more from a combat sim POV like FC than a study sim as DCS largely is atm I guess. If I want to make a little Euro-coalition Luftwaffe base the only non-US a/c option for a-a defence is French Mirages. That's like hanging out with a neighbour who thinks you make too much noise and leaves his rubbish in your front yard. If they only sent Tornados then British RAF would be handling their a-a, but they don't have any a-a a/c implemented either, no ADV Tornado. Best I can do is assign RAAF or RCAF Hornets and whilst it doesn't kill the flavour of that base quite as much as having to put USAF/USMC/USN a/c there to have any chance in a shooting war it's still not quite the flavour I was aiming for designing the mission, say in the early stages of a campaign where just a couple of Euro nations are stepping into Georgia first to avoid a political escalation between the main forces of the RF/CIS and the US, whilst still sabre rattling somewhat safely between them through satellites, partners and coalitions and claiming little or no personal involvement, escalating later in the campaign. So obviously I'm really missing the ICE Phantom personally. But I totally get the USAF F4E as the best DCS sim version to do all round. Good choice. Definitely looking forward to it.

I have an anecdote about this, talking with a civilian military contractor RAAF Hornets were both A and B models when delivered and we were offered upgrade packages to C and D standard but it was too expensive so we made our own to C/D equivalent but without AMRAAM capability. Then we got Superbugs. So yes, the couple of B the RAAF had got upgraded to D minus AMRAAM with local adaptations, presumably under license since nobody went to prison about it. The US uses theirs for carrier landings so they'd probably want new build airframes, but it might be worth checking the other export operators, most NATO/PAC members equipped either the F16 or F/A18 in fairly early production series and then upgraded with installation packages later so I'm sure you'll find some B updated to D in Spain or Singapore or something.

I've played around with ancient motors in backyards and my daily driver is an old Daimler 3.0 litre I put a 30/70 cam in (with the hand machined flow benched rebuild, should be good for 270hp+ but I'll have to MS piggyback the CIS/E to get past 240 looks like). To get full realism from the engine side would be awesome but I can see right off the bat the protraction complex evolutionary diversity will want to play in a genuinely realistic simulation, ie. we'd be talking about a full simulator dedication to the engine model because to get the personality that really characterises each one of those engines, well you couldn't replicate the engine I built in my car and consistency isn't exactly the strong suit of an old Daimler, my plugs are fouling and being blown off again all day long and this kind of old school street racer style engine building is basically exactly the same tech as those WW2 fighter engines except they tune for throttle altitude and we tune for sea level horsepower. So they're a real high performance engine just like a car race motor from past decades and old tech, the same way pretty stressed out just being there, designed to operate normally within an inch of breaking in half and mate, every time I start my kind of annoying but super fun engine in my car it has a completely different personality until I blow the weeds out. You can actually watch the idle degrade over a few seconds sitting in traffic, until you have to rock the throttle just to keep it running, but within a second of taking off it's all good again. This is all the sort of behaviour you'll see in these high performance engines, you just think in terms of operating in a range of air densities instead of a range of engine speeds, a sort of 3d performance graph represented by altitude instead of engine speed like a car race engine, but same tech, same basic build protocol and behaviour as an old drag racing engine. Sodium filled, piston skirt oil cooling, etc. A lot of stuff AMG started doing with Mercedes engines. The Gullwing 300SL capable of 170mph used a direct injection system adapted directly from a Daimler Messer engine. Pilots who flew Merlins and Daimlers will recognize the personalities of those particular engines with an entire series of engine-specific quirks and routines. I suppose it's the flavour of operating those particular aircraft, just like an oil blackened face was part of operating a WW1 vintage aircraft. Just lending my support for this thread. Or running for office. Nope, lending support.

Well in service the undercarriage covers wound up removed or simply not installed on K4 in the field as shown by photographs. The tailwheel was often fixed down too so they were externally almost indistinguishable from a G10, on some airframes ID stampings had to be examined to tell the difference, whilst most are traced by werknummer production lists as opposed to any glaring difference in the airframe and equipment options. A P51 doesn't have good high alt advantage over the G, which has a critical altitude of around 6000m depending on latitude and has plenty of thrust for vertical manoeuvres through to 7000m which is the Merlin 60/70 realm and with the 603 supercharger fitted in the G6/AS it had the same throttle altitude as the Merlin so they were both acting like sea level way up there and both drop off above the same throttle altitude. Mainly the Gustav experienced a performance loss overall, becoming heavy and sluggish compared to the F4 due to boost restriction necessary until the burnt crowns were solved late 43. This gave the 109G a bad report with Allied observers that has stuck postwar of falling behind contemporary Allied types that is mainly due to a problem with the engine rather than a model failure, it has better performance when the engine isn't broken, like after October 43 despite being exactly the same as six months earlier. An accurately simmed late G6 would surprise a lot of people with how good it is, Hartmann actually took one from his training squadron in preference to a new G14 in 44 to replace a broken mount and didn't switch to newer ones until the G10 was available. Yes it is a step up obviously but not as dramatic through most of the flight regime that popular opinion seems to believe. Now a mid-43 G6 yes it is underpowered for its own encumbered design so it is an extremely dramatic step to a K4 from that. All out, a late production, good G6 is capable of about 670km/h, greatly reduced due to boost restriction during parts of 42 and most of 43, then C3/MW50 boosted in 44 with streamlined cowlings about 690km/h and the K4 can just squeak past 700, an Erla G10 cracks 710km/h no sweat and is faster than the K, but is lighter and more streamlined with the same engine so that's expected. The most glaring differences between a K4 and a G14/AS is a ten minute special boost instead of a 2 minute one, better fuel availability for B4 than C3 and it is more fuel efficient at cruise so has 50km more cruising range. If you fight just on military power there won't be a big difference between them or a late G6.

The performance strengths of the 109 remain the same as inherent to unique combination of design elements. The K4 has higher power settings and more thrust overall but is essentially a refined G6 and all but identical to a G10. It was really the design intention of the G series but they fell short and actually lost performance compared to the F4 due to extended difficulties with the 605A engine that were never really solved until October 1943. A G6 produced in November 43 is basically identical to a G14 in 44 except its engine will last a lot longer and build quality is higher, plus it can use straight B4 instead of C3/MW50 and the only thing missing is a 1-2 minute boosted power setting that often blows the engine on a first time use. So really the primary difference between G6/G14 and a K4 in terms of pure flying qualities is pilot workload, an A motor often needs looking after and a D motor looks after you. All out performance jump is big but that's when talking over boost at the special power setting on the K4, it's slightly more powerful and has an increase in thrust at the normal climb and cruise settings and those are at a higher altitude due to the larger supercharger casing, so it is more fuel efficient than an A motor and actually has 50km more range on the same tankage. But it fights exactly the same way as an Emil. They all do. In fact, because of the aeromechanical pilot management system installed from the F4 onwards this entire question is easier to answer for the Spit vs 109 rather than the other way around. With a fully equipped throttle quadrant the Spit pilot has much more that he can do in terms of engine management throughout the flight envelope, he has more direct control but using a simpler system, with little to no automation he has a much higher pilot workload to begin with. A K4 or FW190 pilot has a lower workload than any Allied fighter type due to the aeromechanical and kommandogeraet systems. But for bonus points the Allied ones do have more routinely direct management control of the engine. For example you can overspeed a Merlin a little just on full rich, throttle to the stop and adjust pitch for 3200rpm. It gives like a 100hp boost for a minute or two, then you should pull back to 3000rpm. It's a transport corps take off technique with heavy loads, works fine with any Allied fighter sporting a full throttle quadrant, Allisons are even stronger with better supercharger placement so you can actually play with the boost regulator and fuel types and pump hundreds of horsepower using ram air under 5000ft. A technique used by RAF and RAAF operators of the P40E. But for the 109 it's all about its airframe qualities. You can only exploit those and basic aerial combat tactics like Boelcke dicta.

Haven't set up a home cockpit yet so only have historical exploits to suggest, I'll try these out when I get a proper set of controls to use my DCS modules. Assuming the developers modelling is accurate, by all reports positive: historically the BF109 with any Daimler engine version has the best performance in shallow climb of any WW2 fighter, I even have transcripts from British Ministry specifically warning 2,000hp Hawker Tempest pilots not to attempt following an Me109 into a slow climb. I believe this is the Daimler fluid supercharger coupling in action, working as a 2-speed but not having the stepped performance drop at a gear change altitude, Daimlers simply have a very subtle flat spot at about 3000 metres and like to run hot at low alt. This gives them a tractor like slow climb that other supercharger setups simply can't follow over distance. Point being, any opportunity to extend a shallow climb will bleed more energy from a Spit than it will a 109, the longer or more frequently you can get him to follow you into one the better as aerial combat is, after all an energy game. Thought I should add also, zoom climbs are different, most late war high powered fighters outdo the 109 in that arena. It excels at the tractor climb only, though was superior in all climbs earlier in the war. Dive performance is the second area, mainly dive acceleration. This is pure airframe design and very specific. The cockpit is close to the front of the wings and the selected engine type is inverted inline specifically to reduce frontal mass and narrow the fuselage, so pilot view forward and down is exceptional and well beyond the Spit. It also has far less frontal mass than the Spit, so not only will he no longer be able to see you the instant you drop below his firing line (without moving his wings and nose out of the way first), but there is no other fighter which can match the initial dive acceleration of a 109, again British Ministry documentation warns Tempest pilots in 1944 not to dive with a 109 unless you have superior speed entering the dive, in which case by holding full throttle you will eventually overtake the 109 and zoom to a higher altitude, however at a dive beginning at the same speed the 109 gains more energy. At all times the Tempest pilots are warned to maintain a higher airspeed than a 109 during manoeuvres or else to break and return with a higher airspeed, or they run the risk of it outperforming the Tempest MkV in a critical manoeuvre. And the punchline is the captured 109G2 used in RAF/BAM tests was boost restricted to 1.3ata due to piston holing issues until October 43 Daimler production, so it was like operating with 1350hp against 2000hp. All up RAF pilots commented that it was a far better stalker and hunter than a Spit, designed quite obviously to approach at speed and altitude and dive on enemy aircraft, then casually tractor its way back up to the stratosphere and they could basically do that just as well in 1940 that they could in 1945 and still in 1945 they could do a couple things better than any other type, due to that uniquely tiny frontal mass and tractor engine. So I mean overall performance is equivalent Spit and Messer but they each have such different strengths that if you can exploit them repeatedly during an engagement you'll have to wind up with more energy than your opponent and at least swing chances regularly your way. Just remember it's an energy game and piston fighters don't have any to begin with, so winning that battle will win the engagement. Another historical piece of advice, paraphrasing from Marsielle upon piloting the 109 most effectively in combat: he said learning to handle the 109 at low speed will help you survive the longest. Count on losing all your flight energy, that's just combat. Now that said, Marsielle first became famous when his flight armourers mentioned in a magazine article that he shot down dozens of enemy aircraft routinely using only a handful of cannon rounds and less than a couple of hundred MG rounds. So I guess he could afford to hang on a wing virtually stalling and just shoot down a few enemy planes to make it interesting; hang on I found my figures I had laying around, shot down 6 SAAF No5 Sqn Kittyhawks (confirmed) using 10 rounds of 2cm and 180 rounds of 7.92mm in one sortie 5 June 42. Hartmann straight up followed Boelcke dicta. Stalk the weakest link, dive from the sun, don't fire your guns. Just before you crash into him, try to empty the magazines. Climb to avoid the crash. Repeat as necessary. The way they say most pilots screw up shooting down enemy aircraft is by firing too soon. Under dicta it should be clinical, generally aiming for total surprise and ensuring a kill as early or immediate as possible in priority over any manoeuvring techniques. Of course referencing dictum or military training references does bring up the issue of how to surprise AI aircraft, obviously they have to model many human limitations for realism. Interestingly under Luftwaffe advanced fighter training aces often mention no differentiation between aircraft, Allied or Axis so long as they were contemporary, they placed emphasis on human tactics and pilot experience; where British advanced combat training involved examining strengths and weaknesses between aircraft types. I would've expected that to be the other way around, but say Rall or any of the others will often remark no particular difference between a Mustang, Thunderbolt or late war Spit and Messer, all good planes they say, nothing particular about any, the Thunderbolt went down just like a Mustang, the Thunderbolt dive didn't particularly stand out, the Messer was good they say, the Focke Wulf was good, not so technical about the planes differences at all, more like it all about the pilot for them. I guess it's a combination and the pilot can do the technical part by gut instinct if he's very experienced perhaps.

Apparently when the M4 carries four SPPU22 pods the two under the fuselage can be configured to fire backwards. Sukhoi says it definitely supports Archers, also Kh23 and Kh25ML and tactical nukes. Exports can use R13M or R60M, most attack pilots would be familiar with the R60. Some countries put R13M on their Su22 and use them as fighter-interceptors, generally the same places that only got export-detuned MiG23MS and MiG21bis available so they're stuck with CWC fire control and R13M anyway and the Su22 performs as well as contemporary fighters at all altitudes. Several aerial challenges early in the middle east conflict region towards US carrier aircraft were by fighter-configured local area Su22. The M3 export even had the R29 Tumansky from the MiG23M VVS version, with the water injection so it's a pure fighter engine with extra climb power, but the regular Saturn-Lyulka is probably more efficient and barely a shade less powerful, it's a Mach 2 package with either engine. The cliff notes for what I just said is the Su22M3 seen in the ME performed a lot better than the MiG23MS they had at the time, the export MiG had a detuned engine and the Sukhoi used the same engine as the VVS MiG23 version, it's like 20% power difference on the burner. The basic MiG29 wasn't a terrible burden on Russian industry to produce to replace MiG23, the Su27 far more complicated and expensive, however replacing the Su17 particularly in naval aviation regiments with the newer model strike aircraft would be far more protracted so Caucasus mission building set in the 90s should definitely see these aircraft around, especially being operated by naval aviation so more immediately on hand near neighbours than frontal aviation MiG27/29 and Su24. For example, in 1991 there were about 4000 Su17 in service with frontal aviation and 19 with naval aviation, during the next ten years virtually all of them went second echelon, training groups, naval aviation, export markets and scrapping. Apparently naval aviation absorbed quite a few and considering the economy until just recently undoubtedly found them hard to replace.

Seems a rational idea, although this realm of detail doesn't hugely affect me as a solitary player mostly into the aircraft performance generally, I can see how it could add something to multiplayer enjoyment though. I can detect one can of worms in intrinsic variation to which biology is prone to. I think most can guess where I'd be going with that statement, even your mood on the day, how you've been eating the past week and whether you recently got laid might dramatically affect the biology of your aerial combat piloting, but I think as a rule of thumb things would average out to recognized and accepted general military training regimes. So yeah, why not, it's workable in theory. To illustrate intrinsic variation, just a conditional expression the Japanese aces and decorated veterans in WW2 based around Truk were, at one point downed fairly easily due largely to pilot fatigue and severe illness, being essentially unfit to fly and yet one or two aces still proved difficult, impossible really to take down, in one case the same pilot who was bed ridden with malaria but forced into flight operations and ranged to the limit of the zero's fuel capacity for several hours, fought and won, then returned as most others didn't. In a computer simulation that pilot would never survive, because he must observe the one rule for all and the average is an unsurvivable mission under those piloting conditions, especially against fresh, fit americans operating at short range and complaining about no ice in the cooler at the base. And you could go into anecdotes about WSO's trying to wake the pilot up after a 12G pull. Maybe it was his aftershave.

Just support on Fri's excellent post, the real world placement of military antennae and SAM at the naval base and locations across the Kuban and Caucasus outline everything he said with perfect clarity, as areas devoid of EWR or dedicated GCI are clearly gaps in the network that are obviously filled by the great big S400 emplacement near the naval base, and for continuance of the network to function correctly, obviously the SAM antennae must spend the bulk of their time slaved to the EWR/GCI network filling that gap or else strike aircraft could penetrate directly from the Black Sea right into the heart of the VVS test and training facilities on the Kuban, one of Russia's highest security regions AFAIK. I mean they don't like you looking too closely at a cow farm but here is where they do most of their air forces development training, there's not going to be a great big coverage gap, the SAM radar must be filling the gap slaved to the system or it just doesn't make any sense otherwise. What I'm curious about would be a slaved electro-optical system in high security zones like they have on the ships. Bet that's part of the current GCI in sensitive areas.

I'm a casual player and won't be setting up a proper home cockpit until I move so am still at the beginner's stage of familiarizing myself with mission building pure AI play-throughs and doing parking startups on clickable plane modules. I can FC3 a little bit with an Extreme 3D Pro but it's all I have, including mouse view to look around so I'm a couple of arms short of functioning well until the home cockpit upgrade next year when I move. Just so you know where I'm coming from, just a light hearted thread mentioning some laughs I had doing the little I can at the moment with DCSW. And trying to learn the Combined Arms since that's at least one thing I can play around with mostly on mouse/keys. Man I'm less than halfway towards having any idea how to do a bunch of stuff. But anybody else getting some comedic sketches in AI behaviour? I was running through some CAS chopper missions on some opposing armour sections, one run I had the Mi8 attack with rockets and guns and the tanks, IFV and APC, even unarmed supply trucks all ignored that aside from returning fire with HMG and an Ural/AAA and not much damage was done, a couple of trucks wrecked before an engine on the Mi8 was flamed. Replayed with an Mi24 loaded to the teeth with like 40% fuel and the instant the first Shturm hit every vehicle scattered, one BTR APC went for the beach and headed directly out into the Black Sea! All it needed was someone shouting in the background "OMG IT'S A HIND" and it'd be a classic Rambo movie moment. That's just the one that sticks in mind because it just happened, but I get that somewhere around 1 in 8 or so little quick missions I throw together trying to familiarize myself. It kind of cracks me up a bit, it's pretty cool. Just curious if anyone has links to some YouTubed comedic AI in DCSW by chance? I wouldn't be surprised if someone hasn't done a small collection or something.

I have to say I was mission building the last couple of weeks with the current in game MiG-25RBT and it kept standing out there in the background as an AI bird, I had it streaking across Georgia at 15,000 metres and about Mach 2.3. I had 2.5 selected but it topped out at 24??km/h or around 2.3, a little off, Mikoyan OKB rates it as 2.8 Mach at 13,000m combat loaded, mid-mission and is fairly specific about it, 3,000 km/h demonstrated with combat load at this height, further claiming it maintains the 2.8 Mach number up to 20,000 metres and higher and holds the world airbreathing zoom climb record at 123,000ft, mostly due to that high mach climb capability, titanium frontal sections and nickel steel everything else, which is a bit like Damascus Steel in a sword. Anyway then in mission you focus on fighter action and there's this high alt MiG it avoids a Hawk fired at it from a USMC Georgian airbase assignment and heads overwater, still supersonic at low alt, continues its recon mission spying on the US carrier battlegroup escorting Tarawa to report back to the Kremlin and climbs back to stratosphere and high Machs back home, I mean I paused the mission build and just F2'd on that for a run because it was so cool. I just originally put it in there for some background traffic, but it's like a Lamborghini, you can't not check it out as much as possible. So now I'm looking forward to this mod more than ever. :D I suppose as some form of payment we could all send you amateur porn. Something really kinky, like action figure xxx. Leia expresses her true feelings for He-Man at Castle Grayskull but you might have to fill in the dirty bits, they're normal action figures dude. I do have questions: Will the "runaway rpm, engine over speeding phenomenon, without careful engine management by the pilot between speeds 2.5 Mach and 2.8 Mach," to paraphrase Belyenko upon pilot operation of the MiG-25, be modelled? Belyenko said the issue was so serious that airspeed was normally restricted to 2.5 Mach without special permission to exceed this for the sortie, such as a live fire missile interception or other emergency worthy of sacrificing the aircraft. IIRC Mikoyan OKB validated the American 1970s folklore of the MiG25RB-series being capable of airspeeds in excess of Mach 3, when the Israeli incident is cited. A Russian MiG25RB with Egyptian markings was clocked by Israeli ground stations in the early 70s, exceeding 3.2 Mach whilst fleeing Israeli F4 Phantoms over Jordan. Russian reports mention this incident and remark that the engines experienced over speeding and were destroyed during the flight, the airframe exceeded maximum 2.83 Mach Mikoyan design limit and so was also scrapped upon landing, most likely all the aerials, sensors and various avionics systems would be damaged and melted by friction, Mikoyan advises aerials and cockpit framing begins melting beyond 2.83 Mach and therefore is unsafe, although the aircraft is capable of exceeding it. Is the modelling for the pilot view of flying the aircraft planned to include some of the high mach mythology of the Foxbat such as these remarks?

Sukhoi claims the phased fire control set can identify a periscope in open ocean at 400km and retains the Su-27 air to air capabilities so I'd say it's definitely capable of it. A lot of people don't know about the Naval Aviation version used as a side by side trainer for Flanker carrier ops. It obviously has different capabilities, the main physical difference being the nose of the Su-34 is flattened out and has phased array whilst the Navy trainer has the same radar as the Su-33 on the airframe of an Su-34. It comes from back when the airframe was first being played with and Sukhoi made an Su-27IB version (fighter-bomber) which became the Su-34 and a trainer version for Naval Aviation with a different equipment fit. The main thing that actually makes the Su-34 (Su-27IB) a deep penetration strike fighter, aside from merely taking advantage of the Su-27 excellent fuel load and engine efficiency, is the cabin essentially built onto a Flanker airframe, it has two seats, a bunk bed, a galley and a toilet. Aside from that it's really just a Flanker with AESA and a slight speed and manoeuvrability reduction. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you saw Su-34 on an intercept patrol in the arctic circuit in the future, on a pure air to air mission. Both pilots and local commanders of the northern sectors always complained about fighters that fatigued pilots too much on those long, arctic patrols. The basis of the Tu-128 as an interceptor was crew fatigue on long patrols being more concern than high Mach capabilities in the arctic sectors. Ostensibly the Flanker and Foxhound replaced all the Cold War PVO interceptors and the regiments were folded into a restructured VVS. But the design qualities of the Tu-128 were never really replaced, the concern still present and the perfect airframe to fill the gap is the Su-34. At the moment I think they're completely depending upon Kuznetsov and its 20-odd Su-33 for the entire remote arctic combat patrol zones, doing it with the Northern Fleet rather than long range land based interceptors, probably looking for boomers more than bombers but still, think B-2.

I remember when RAAF were deciding whether to replace the Mirage III-O with the F-16 or the F/A-18, so the respective followers of each published plenty of industry development material and technical information about each, strengthening their respective arguments. I recall one such article discussing the sidestick and seat of the F-16, referencing some design spokesperson or other, describing it as part of the intention of the design to maximise pilot performance in aerial combat, so there were no frames forward in the pilot view orientated bubble canopy and the seating position was for maximum field of view to watch for e/a. The sidestick was because of the seating position and was controversial. Just to postscript that story, I believe one of the deciding arguments between the types, it was a very close race, RAAF liked the toughened USN landing gear and the way carrier aircraft are designed to be handled suits Oz requirements for a fighter. But the popular argument was the F-16 being viewed as designed primarily for air to air engagements whilst the Hornet was a strike fighter and RAAF wanted a strike role more than a fighter one, from something that could also act like a fighter/interceptor on those rare missions. But I think it was more the landing gear and USN-NA qualities like twin engine reliability for long flights over barren Australian territories.

I was just hoping MAC would loosely be an FC3 expansion, with remaining model updates, further improved integration/updating with DCS scripting on anything still LOMAC like Russian AAMs and even more flyables and AI aircraft/vehicles/ships. Seems to me they already have a MAC in FC3 but it just needs some work to sit at home fully in DCSW, whether just some improved res on some of the models or a bug hunt to completely ensure all scripting is fully updated to DCSW standards. Why would you split that off onto a standalone product when an FC3 reconstruction aims at exactly the same market with more benefits in every way?

For realism you'd have to implement and develop the completely different individual variations between how specific aircraft are affected by various kinds of ECM, for example the specific reason the Smerch doesn't use solid state but has cumbersome valve electronics is because in 1970, in any country that was the only thing capable of handling the wattage it is capable of generating, to burn through any known ECM attempt at that time at 30km (solid state simply couldn't handle the same power, anyone who owns a guitar amp will tell you it still can't handle the same power as valves with smooth, clear overdrive and gentle fuzz, transistorized or digital breaks down the sound like nails on blackboard and this is today's tech level, a digital electrocution will stop your heart, a valve one will pop your eyeballs and burn them out in their sockets, I grew up with valve electronics), although the warhead seekers really needed to be about 15km for a solid, unbreakable lock. Bring an F4 with AIM7B onto the same EW aircraft area and just watch those Sparrows go heading in random directions or just ballistic at any range, point blank if you want. They weren't that reliable without any ECM at all. Compare to simple, ranging fire control sets like the F5 and early MiGs in service for DCS mission periods. An F104. And the whole point of the F4N/F4E are improved target discrimination and ECCM for better Sparrows with improved reliability, well terrain modules for the E but along those lines. F4N has a strong dish, but still a fraction of a Smerch which has no target discrimination or doppler and is just sheer wattage. I had the weight of a Smerch once, 1.2 tons iirc and really big up close. Sapphire and Topaz radars are fairly conventional, contemporary doppler types, Sapphire simply remaining in service long after F4 Phantoms were retired in the USAF but the Topaz is contemporary with the teen series fighters main production period. Maybe you could characterise them as the analogue and digital MiG doppler sets, Flanker sort of gets its own category. Mostly Russian avionics suffers in data handling with frontal aviation fighters in particular, a MiG29 can only handle 3 navigation waypoints for example in reality, whilst contemporary NATO fighters of any type can enter complicated flight plans. The MiG29 fire control set is considered inferior to NATO contemporaries in target discrimination purely because it can't process the data from its own radar in a high traffic engagement. The Sapphire is outdated but still a contemporary of most small nation air force equipment/avionics, so even a MiG23MLD can be an imposing, modern threat to one of the downgraded F16A early series the US gave Pakistan with AIM9P or the F5E still kicking around in service around the world. But having an MFD is like having the space shuttle compared to a MiG23. But the digitally scanned, phased array of the MiG31 is a completely different ball park. Before the AESA and keep in mind this type was introduced into service in 1989, the only radar set that compared to it in a service aircraft was the B1-B, no fighter in the world had anything like it. The Foxhound is capable of locking up a target on radar which is situated anywhere around the aircraft, other than directly behind the jet nozzles, using the phase scan array, described as sections of the airframe functioning as part of the digital antennae system. Whilst this all makes the Foxhound one of the most expensive export fighters in the world and killed its export market, it is also advanced, powerful and developed enough to perform at the very front line of modern fire control set capabilities, despite apparent age, in part due to massive initial expense and continuing development budgets to maintain the Foxhound position as Royal Prince of the Russian Air Force. Russians never skimped on expense with that particular aircraft, only Sukhoi private development projects compare, making it still contemporary with a Berkut. Modern combat role is a lightning strike fighter: high Mach, pack of AGM, outruns missiles on egress. Point being and this applies to Tomcats and Hornet D with a WSO instead of tandem, some expensive, high grade avionics and a dedicated operator. Eagles have a powerful set, as do Flankers, Hornets and Vipers have top shelf digitalization and constant upgrades, other sets like Sapphire have extremely poor target discrimination to begin with and then just get tossed in the bin with any ECM in the area. Then different missile seekers can be individualistic with ECCM capabilities, combined with whatever issues of the launch aircraft in an EW environment. And this is all before we get into the aircraft handbook, service records and pilot reviews of each individual aircraft, EW pod and missile's typical ECM/ECCM behaviour on the modern battlefield. Lateral tactics don't break the lock on non-doppler sets, but diving does. AESA raw data handling capacity probably does as much to increase performance as the radar set development itself. Wattage and burn through is one thing but so is a dedicated operator and advanced, modern digital processors and programming shells. The amount of power a SparkVaark can pump out in 4 hours would probably power a small town for a year. I'm sure it's been pointed out but just outlining the logic of realism if this barrel of monkeys is opened. You'd need a dedicated ECM simulator to correctly sim ECM, it's a question of processing requirements shy of a supercomputer. Real life doesn't have a limit we can view other than to call it physics, we have to compromise with map population, rendering, flight models, avionics modelling, weapons modelling, you could spend all of those resources on just a realistic ECM simulation but that'll take up an entire modern computer's resources by definition. Electronic warfare is literally everything electronic you can throw at it using the maximum current digital-strategic potential, to adapt Clausewitz. I'd even say one correctly modelled modern ECM attack would be all of the resources a high end computer is capable of, by definition. It's useless if it can't overwhelm the target's capacity to deal with it using the same electronic-digital constraints of current technology. To characterise: here deal with this...and maintain flight operations, that's the disadvantage of the defender. And don't forget datalink carriages have been part of the ECM environment over the past two decades so that's all part of the current equation. Want to mess with the USN boomer fleet? You'll need current intel on locations but toss some green lasers at it saying things like das vydania to interrupt their satcomm action orders, this is where ECM is pointed at these days. I get you just want to change the ECM behaviour of FC3 but one has to appreciate a dedicated effort really needs to pointed in that direction to create a sim generated semi-realistic-feeling system using value checks and RNG to give what amounts to popular celebrations of general characteristics, this is a big project in itself and at the end begin all the arguments of all the intrinsic variations contained within any grouping such as popular impressions... It might be a bright side to consider it probably not nearly as difficult to render a Vietnam era ECM environment without too much resource drain, but it wouldn't be modern-realistic. Pretty much anything owned by a wealthy, if not large military will just walk through it with a bit of crackle over the radio speakers. Maybe like Iran would have trouble. :D Realistic? A Kirov can supposedly shut down local e/a mission capability with its ECM suite and down a quintillion of incoming missiles with its datahandling capacity combined with kashtan/kynzhal defense screen. How would somebody even model that? How do you ECCM nuclear powered ECM from a gigantic warship? I'm going to go ahead and guess it out-powers a SparkVaark.

USN did look at the YF16 for carrier ops, but modifications required would weigh it up a fair bit and the Northrop YF17 was the better choice for this, following redesign and license production under McDD as the carrier modded F/A-18. But the F16 definitely got Air Force contract because every test pilot couldn't stop raving about how awesome it was. The YF17 was forgotten about until the Navy resurrected it. Interestingly the YF17 was basically an upmarket modernization of an F5, partially a dusting off of an FX competitor they were playing around with in 1968. Also interesting the F5E was selected for the Aggressor role by USN specifically because, with some easy systems modifications it actually performs identically at low altitudes to a MiG21, the MiG of course performed differently at high alt but at low alt where most aerial engagements wind up it's identical for handling and performance characteristics so was ideal for an Aggressor role. I read something interesting about the F16 production blocks at the F16 website, which has air force sources and viper pilots associated with it, describing how different Block 30era FCS is from later vipers, describing it as analogue versus digital. Some of the viper pilots said they preferred the Block 30 because the pilot could override the alpha limiter, but in the DFCS they couldn't. What they were talking about is viper versus fulcrum engagements and were saying the Block 30 stood up better in pushing manoeuvring limits with the MiG, but the later ones are disadvantaged by user lock out whilst the MiG pilot can disable safeties and exceed alpha limiter by simply fighting a push bar with some arm force. But they did mention the Block 50 more than makes up for this with engine and updates and effectively can't be outdone by a fulcrum unless they climb to mid alt and let it get some speed under its wings. At low alt the Block 50/52 has too much acceleration and subsonic speed availability for the fulcrum to compete with until they both climb and get supersonic. I can't say about comparisons but it was an interesting read, hope I paraphrased it fairly okay. Sounded like the conclusions were Block 30 era essentially one for one with a MiG29, whilst the Block 50 era is superior in speed at low alt but cannot exceed safety limiters during manoeuvres; whilst the MiG is superior in speed characteristics to both at higher alt. The Luftwaffe conclusion during wargames against Block 50 vipers during the 90s was that a good pilot in a Fulcrum simply cannot be beaten by Vipers if they're all using close range missile/gun engagements, I read the transcript, the words the Luftwaffe commander said were, "...cannot be beaten, period." Personally I'm pretty fascinated by the F16 production blocks, being such different aircraft between them, and its obviously significant performance changes. And then the old school Russian MiG, with a rod that tries the push the stick out of your hand if you're going to crash the plane, what's next, a hammer that hits you on the head if you do it over population? :D

One item on my wishlist is simply combat mission selection for naval whirly birds. The fire director/recon version of the Helix-B/Hormone-B is crucial for tactical functionality of the Russian surface action units. Armed SeaHawks capable of mission functional fleet recon seem a missing element too. When mission building in the Caucasus for major Russian naval units I put up a Ka27 transport and pretend it's a Kamov scout/fire-director but it's not functional in DCS. We need a recon mission selectable for the Ka27 which makes it functional for Shipwreck/Sandbox guidance over the horizon without a Russian AWACS necessary. NATO units will always have AWACS present during mission deployment so it's less an issue for them. Russia only needs to put up AWACS when operating over enemy air like Georgia, generally rubbing shoulders directly with core Russian military means combat in their territory so EW/GCI network information sharing replaces the role of AWACS with regional box coverage as opposed to signal direction/reception (defeating simpler low-RCS measures and giving more accurate target tracking in the same way networked radio telescopes function as one giant telescope capable of seeing across the universe), they don't need AWACS over home territory but do need over the horizon targeting for their Shipwrecks and an electronic view of the combat environment extending to the range of the naval armaments without an AWACS present. Since it is a wishlist I'll also say it'll be super fun for the Kuznetsov to have the teeth to perform its primary fleet role with functional Helix and Hormone variants. All based on the Ka27: Ka29RLD is an all-weather Russian early warning variant of the Ka27 that absorbed the role of Ka25T fleet recon/fire-director whilst increasing its capabilities with advancements in electronics technologies and sensor fit. Stripped of combat armouring reinforcement and lightened to carry extensive electronics suite, 2 were on the Kuznetsov during the 90s to provide both electronic early warning and long range missile guidance to the fleet. Ka27PL 3 crew ASW version with chin radome, dipping sonar and deployed in pairs armed with a depth charge magazine, one torpedo each or Kh35 antishipping missiles. Can also be stripped of armaments and used as a transport with 1-2 crew and up to 16 passengers on folding seats or cargo. Kuznetsov held more than a dozen at half capacity. Ka27PS search and rescue variant is essentially a modified Ka27PL with winches, rescue equipment and auxiliary fuel tankage. Obviously can also operate as a longer range transport. Ka29TB marine support version of the Ka27 with stub wings and additional cabin/engine armouring. 4 barrel 7.62mm gatling on starboard pintle mount, stub wings with four stores hardpoints mounting 23mm gun pods, 57mm or 80mm rocket pods, AT6 Shturm clusters or 500 litre auxiliary fuel tanks. Carries up to 16 marine assault troops. Can also be stripped of armaments and used as a field ambulance with 4 stretchers and 6 seated casualties. Also carried by Kuznetsov in the 90s. Also naturally would like the SH60 similarly updated for mission build functionality to broaden the role of individual naval units, giving more teeth to the NATO cruisers and destroyers at long range from carrier support, especially considering classical soviet doctrine being sudden massed attack from rearward positions, CAP can't help and a Hornet antishipping strike takes time. You could have diesel subs and fast corvettes attacking in waves with SH60 helping defence until carrier aircraft can show up, just an abstraction. At the moment I just can't do anything with an SH60 except pretend, or a Ka27 and they're integral combat support to the naval units they're based on. :D

The K4 basic airframe has a lot more installed equipment than a G10, with additional structural reinforcement and is heavier. Most sources tend to use Gustav weights in common with Kurfurst but primary references such as Luftwaffe pilots remark the K4 is heavier than a G10 whilst sharing basic specification and many, sometimes most components, but it was sturdier. Empty weight should be significantly heavier than a Gustav. Historically the tailwheel of the late 109 variants were lengthened to allow ground clearance for the fins of a 500kg bomb, but following an extensive discussion at a warbird aviation site citing numerous primary sources that only a 250kg bomb was carried in practise, largely because no actual examples of any 109 carrying a 500kg bomb during a combat sortie exist in photographic or any other kind of primary reference, only the 250kg or four 50kg. It is definitely intended to be capable of carrying one, it is just no historical example exists for whatever reason such as rough field operation (poor ground clearance for stores on bouncy take off runs), or maybe just better availability of 250kg. It's still a big bomb. It's basically the same thing as 500lb allied bombs, an effective ground attack load.

It's worth understanding the Gustav to understand the late war BF109 variants and subvariants. Anything we say about them will be contextual, just as it is true to say the K is a G and nothing like a G. Probably the most true thing to say would be the K achieved what the G was supposed to be. The BF109G started off as an aim and miss at a series development goal started in 1940, right about when development of the Daimler 601E engine became protracted. As the BF109F was entering production work was already beginning on its successor and a bore increase of the 601E for more power; as the idea was the new Gustav would make use of mission specific loadout kits development work and service trialling began with experimental Friedrich prototypes sent into the field with units like JG54 to test out the MG151/20 gondolas, etc. These became the R6 kit of the Gustav, just as with the FW190A a lot of factory umbaatz kits of the A5 became rustsatze kits in the A6 onwards. So the first characterisation of the G series is to say it is the first 109 variant really designed as a kind of early multirole fighter with a variety of loadout and equipment options for mission specific field orders. The trouble with it is each individual layout really had to be organised and installed during production and assembly, with some kits like the MW50 boost system unavailable until February 1944 and the MK108 aerial gun until October 43. A field unit could order specific assemblies of a G but loosely speaking the rustsatze kits couldn't really be fitted in rough field conditions and were ordered by units during assembly. The big difference between the G and K here is the K has all the internal components of available rustsatze kits already fitted, so units ordered aircraft from parks rather than assembly plants. It was all part of the reorganization by Speer that boosted production, whilst giving field units exactly what they wanted for their specific missions. All series airframe development updates or changes, like wooden tail fins or wider ones and new propellers, generally speaking where adopted across the range of production and assembly plants for all currently produced variants and subvariants, so a late build G6 is basically indistinguishable from some G14 and other G14 are almost indistinguishable from a K4 or a G10 and some G10 can be confused with a G14 and an earlier build G6 is different to all of them. Late build G6 in some instances were updated to G14 standard in the field with a handful of parts and an MW50 kit, they already looked the same to begin with, some pilots even thought the only difference between G6 and G14 was MW50, which is mostly true because it's an administrative designation. G14 represented reorganisation of all existing Gustav subvariant production combined into the one subtype. Again completely the result of Speer's reorganisation and nothing really to do with technical specifications. The area the G missed its mark was the 605A engine, which was supposed to be a simple upscale of the 601E, giving the best Daimler power rating of earlier engine types whilst using widely available B4 fuel. It was supposed to handle the 1.45ata emergency power setting just like the 601E but what it did was promptly cooked the pistons. This became an issue which plagued the 605A and was never completely solved until October 1943. Until then the 605A was boost restricted to 1.35ata, marginal difference to the climb setting and this stifled performance throughout 1943. It took a few months following G2 service entry for the problem to be realized, enough time for Marsielle to lose his life and more than one attempt to fix it with field modification kits and different piston crowns, but these failed. There was a period in early 43 where the 605A was cleared for 1.42ata but it didn't last and it was only finally cleared in October 43. The problem here is the entire 605 project had design goals of, on B4 fuel 1.5ata normal maximum and 2.0ata in the future with the use of MW50. This was never actually achieved until the D motors in late 1944 and even they needed C3 to get near 2.0ata. So really the first 109 that performed the way the G was originally designed to be was the K4. Between the design board and the field the Gustav missed its mark by that much, if you put a K4 into 1942 that's how the designers thought the G1/2 would be. And if 605A seemed more fragile than a 601E then the addition of MW50 finally, in Feb44 made them downright unreliable. Hotrodding the Daimler with corrosive C3 never helped field serviceability to start with, records describe the 605AM/ASM motors using 1.7ata with TBO in the dozens of hours and a one shot deal if the pilot isn't careful, over-boost was extremely limited at 1-2mins with long cool down periods. Mainly it was about load bearing off rough fields and getting a head start on time to altitude, or during intercept or ingress a final burst of speed. The 605DB motor of course has ten full minutes of over-boost at 1.8ata between cooldowns, which is as reliable as the extensively developed Jumo 213 series engine and long enough to last an entire aerial engagement. The D motor also combines the best features of the 605A and 605AS altitude characteristics with a well tuned supercharger casing so both G10 and K4 which share the engine have vastly improved performance throughout over earlier variants and the G14. Since it was lighter than the K4 but shared engines, the Erla built G10 is regarded as the fastest production 109 to see service, apparently these were hand refinished with improved aerodynamics and possibly higher build quality than any other 109, so whilst the K4 was the new model the king of the hill in the aerial combat stakes would be the Erla G10. For historical accuracy, build quality in the late war also has to be some consideration, enough can't be said on the subject. Wright-Patterson postwar review of a captured, pristine Dora, which had to be completely rebuilt for airworthiness gave scathing regard of its build quality, rating its performance equivalent to a P51D but describing it as a hotrod that was hacked together in a backyard shed, whilst the Mustang was built like a Cadillac, it was draughty, unbearably hot, rattly and noisy in the cockpit, the motor sounded like it was going to explode, the airframe felt like it was going to shake apart and the panels didn't fit well so the edges were flapping against their fasteners, altogether he simply couldn't believe it matched up to the Mustang in performance like this and wasn't sure it would survive the flight. Reviews like this made a lot of passing comments surrounding historical documentation and vet records of late war 109 build quality. Hartman actually refused a G14 upgrade in 44 and instead took an October 43 build G6 from his reserve flights to replace a broken mount, due to the build quality degrading so much. Other examples are comments about Hungarian license produced 605A engines being more reliable than those in Germany during 44. An October 43 G6 would be a good plane. From 1944 build quality is of serious concern in model selection despite dramatic ramping of production, perhaps not helped by it. Before that you want a late 41 F4 but it has much more limited loadout options. An earlier Gustav built anytime between 42-43, if accurately simmed would have to model its love of overheating, burning the crowns, opening the oil seals and flaming, which is how Marsielle died when he bailed from his flaming G2 after overheating the 605A. It would have to be boost restricted for these reasons, as per historical and resulting in poor British view of the later build 109 compared to Spitfire evolution. Similarly if we put in a G14 module it would need to model shocking build quality and engines that might hold together with a rabbit's foot. G10 would be like the Wright-Patterson Dora review, horribly built hotrods incredibly capable of matching Allied performance. But then here and there or if you got the right build location like Erla you got unremarkable or even very good build quality. You just never knew. Any variant up to the F2 lacks the aeromechanical pilot interface, with a higher pilot workload so that might actually be a fun variation, the F2 is actually a cool idea, a midwar 109 to dogfight with the I16 module and it has the hotrod 601N running on C3 with a 2min emergency overboost. It was also the first 109 to standardize the jabo role and begin stores carriage development for the forthcoming G series. Unlike the 109F4 onwards the pilot operated a manually adjusted constant speed propeller in a regular throttle quadrant, with an earlier gunsight and more limited equipment, it is a more seat of the pants 109 and might be characterised as the highest performing, old school version little different to any late-30s pilot interface. From the F4 they suddenly became advanced and a late war type, with one touch pilot management and overall refinement. An earlier jump to something like a SCW 109C might be oodles of fun too but contemporary adversaries would all have to be modelled. The F2 through to G4 at least falls into I16 type 18/24 batch mission service but definitely nobody wants a G built before October 43.

Sorry, I usually use a technical review to help me decide a type :D You know you'll end up buying both eventually anyway :laugh:

Since I'm a westerner that prefers flying Russian birds for variety, growing up in the cold war made me so familiar with NATO aircraft I just prefer losing myself in Russian ones for a change. But it does really get up my nose how badly the Russian air intercept missiles perform, definitely biased against. As a science enthusiast I just find it academically unsound, personally. The Russians had phased array in a front line fighter type in '91, they're not deficient and are just as capable of reading the same physics books western scientists read. So what gives?

I'm super looking forward to this but so impressed by the quality of all the DCS work so far and realize the sheer amount of work involved...well IMHO it's all bargain pricing on a superb environment and don't want to rush anyone. Just know I'm an avid customer of everything DCS so consider me a satisfied sale with any additions. :)

I might be necrothreading a bit but it's a poorly understood subject so worth stating. The C3 injector and MW50 boost systems aren't about C3 or MW50 at all, in fact ideally neither would be required for what is being achieved by them. It's all about over boosting the engine supercharger to accomplish higher than normally rated power outputs. Nothing to do with injecting anything, all about over boosting the blower. This was a common practise for supercharged aircraft before boost regulators became normally fitted, for example the P40E doesn't have a boost regulator, so the pilot has to carefully manage the throttle below critical altitude or damage the engine with too much boost. This is because the throttle gives maximum boost at critical altitude, air is more dense at lower altitude, so the maximum boost is exceeded below critical altitude unless you have a boost regulator fitted, like a P40M. That one you can shove the throttle to its gate at take off and simply get maximum emergency power, try it in a P40E and you'll hit about 1900hp for half a second and explode the engine. Without a boost regulator you have to watch what you're doing with the throttle under critical altitude, hence it's called critical altitude because you need to be wary under it and not sad altitude because you lose boost above it. That's the way I like to think about it anyway. Okay so the common practise was to richen the mixture a little too much for normal running and push the throttle a little too far forward, exceeding maximum listed manifold pressure, to exceed normal maximum outputs for a short period, 1-2 minutes tops. But then by midwar pretty much every aircraft had auto mixture and boost regulators so you couldn't do it without a built in override facility or mechanical adjustment, but it probably saved a lot of fighter engines from excited cadets. Simple version is you couldn't do it so easily once a lot of a/c management became automated or semi automated, but it was a common practise when everything was so manual the pilot had to spend more time looking at instruments than they could looking for e/a and broken engines in those days were very common indeed. An example of this is the RAF operating P40E at 1670hp in North Africa and RAAF actually getting 1720hp from theirs by significantly over boosting using high grade fuels, documented by Allison Engineering in wartime correspondence records. Quite a bump from the 1150hp rated output. It was a letter advising against its continued practise as exceeding manufacturer operating procedure and dangerous for forthcoming engine type production, although Allison was apparently quite pleased their engine stood up better than their expectations in the field. Adding a charge coolant injector obviously alters this field improvisation of boosted power to one of manufacturer installation under tested guidelines. Initially these did the same thing pilots used to do on their own initiative, ie. a modest boost increase for a very limited duration of 1-2 minutes before holing the pistons. With further development, improvements to the intended engine in chambering and so forth specific to the modification, by 1944 over boosting with a charge coolant got you up to ten minutes of continuous, significant over boost and power increase in hundreds of horsepower, without breaking the engine. This took time to develop using synthetic fuels, Daimler worked closely with IG Farben to develop combustion chambering throughout the war, their original 1940 goal of 2bar over boost and 1.5bar military power in the forthcoming 605 engine was never actually achieved until the D motor of late44 (and 1.85ata was the best they got on B4). One way of cheating was to hotrod an engine with C3 (or C2) fuel like the 1940 601N motor, Daimlers normally run on B4 so the higher knock rating allowed a limited over boost for 1-2mins. But the BMW 801D already ran on C3 so unless you were going to run it on alcohol you couldn't really hotrod it. Now the 801D2 was intended from the beginning of production to use MW50/over-boost kits but these weren't available from their manufacturer until February 1944 for whatever reasons. In the meantime Focke Wulf wanted a cheat for the FW190G to give over boost at low altitude for its schnellbomber mission role, which in modern terms you might call deep penetration strike. These were sent in raids against the British coast in 43 and had to outpace Spitfires by the dozen for any chance at survivability. So came the C3 injector, which also tended to find its way into the F series. German engines use direct injection after the blower compresses raw air, which gets quite hot and throws out the mixture when you over boost. Boost enrichening is normally incorporated into factory tuning but when you over boost you go beyond normal tuning. Not such a big deal in a carb motor like the Merlin, which compresses a fuel-air mixture and can probably get away with manual mixture adjustment to compensate but a real problem in a German engine compressing raw air and then adding pre-calculated fuel metering that didn't have over boost in mind. The C3 injector just adds an extra fuel injector to the supercharger intake for boost enrichment and it helps a little with charge cooling compared to compressing raw air. The over boost it can withstand is limited but there. The MW50 is piped to the supercharger exhaust and uses a completely different set of playing rules, the direct injection itself is retuned for over boost enrichment and the injector just cools raw air coming out of the compressor. It allows significant over boost for long periods. The FW190 radials got MW50 from February 44. The G and F had a much more limited C3 injector over boost before then.

Stuka would likely carry the PC1000 armour piercing bomb for antishipping with the gunner seat left empty to carry the weight. One hit would probably sink a pre-dreadnaught battleship like the Marat, it's like a 1903 design with triple expansion steam engines and no concept of aerial threats. A Ju88 is more suited to the role however, some carried a pair of PC1000 under the wing roots for the purpose as a part of numerous Luftwaffe special tactical development projects, the Lehrgeschwader and such, IIRC it had MG151/20 under the nose for shipboard FlaK suppression. They also played with He111 torpedo bombers. FW190G could and most likely would carry a PC500 with a pair of drop tanks under the wings to attack ships, which is the lightest armour piercer and it would readily be misidentified as a 190A or F, however generally variants other than the G carried a 250kg bomb and not a 500kg one when you start to check historical record over design features, either an SC250 HE or thick walled SD250. It might also be noteworthy the 190G was the first to get an engine boost system for use at low altitude in the first blower gear, which is the sort of thing you do to help heavy loads off short runways. By the time Schlachtgeschwader were formed the F might also carry an AB250 submunitions dispenser with 4 SC50 under the wings for attacking troop concentrations or airfields, but SD50 are available which would help mess up a transport ship. An SD250 would be very nasty for anything shy of a cruiser. SD have an adjustable fuse IIRC. Stuka would definitely carry a PC500 or PC1000 if an antishipping sortie so perhaps any FW190 variant tasked with antishipping would carry a PC500, eg. the A and F of the SG units. Overland jabo however I can't think of any but a G that carries a 500kg by example. The BF109G14, G10 and K4 were also designed to carry a 500kg bomb yet in practise also carried only a 250kg by example. The tailwheel lengthening compared to earlier variants was actually to provide ground clearance for a 500kg bomb rather than pilot view in taxi. Perhaps due to the majority of forward airfields being rough grass and the majority of late war airfields being very hasty setups with even quicker retreat plans, perhaps it is that rough field runways were simply too bouncy to risk the tight ground clearance of a 500kg bomb over a 250kg bomb. Or maybe it was a supply thing and the 250kg was simply more widely dispersed. As far as hauling capacity is concerned the FW190A had no trouble carrying well in excess of 1000kg loads ferrying heavy bombs to KG airfields in 44. It could not deploy these weapons, but armourers affixed SC1000, 1400 and other heavy bombs for transport by the fighter and then at the bomber airfield other armourers would have to remove it again, it couldn't be jettisoned or armed from the cockpit, purely a ferry mission. It also carried torpedos which it could deploy, in some development prototypes that were 750kg and heavier, but this version had the guns and any other non-essential equipment removed. The aforementioned FW190G did routinely carry a 500kg bomb with two drop tanks, or two 250kg bombs under the wings with a drop tank, but had all but the wing root 2cm guns removed and IIRC magazines reduced. The F series had the outer wing 2cm guns removed, probably to allow internal reinforcement for double ETC50 racks there. As mentioned a typical loadout would be a 250kg bomb and four 50kg bombs. A G would carry a 500kg bomb if a single bomb was being carried to allow for two drop tanks. Otherwise with a single drop tank it would carry two 250kg bombs. The SC250 and SD250 is definitely the mainstay of the jabo. Even Me210 was specifically designed to carry two SC250 internally as the heavy fighter mission shifted from strafing attack to fighter-bomber. I would definitely like to see SC, SD and AB variants in the 250kg class for all the German fighter DCS WW2 modules (FW190A8, D9 and BF109K4), to give the variety required for different mission tasking. Because they can carry a 500kg whether or not they actually did in service (apparently not), it'd also be nice to have the PC500 and PC500R delayed fuse armour piercers simply because the type doesn't come in 250kg. Experimenting with rockets was very big for the FW190A, the 3 main ones being WGr21, R4M and Panzerschreck/Panzerblitz in triple racks. It was always experimental but included combat sorties so equipped, but numbers in the handful except for WGr21 which was commonly fitted to later Antons such as those intercepting bombers over the Netherlands. The Dora also used R4M on sorties IIRC, so it's good that option exists in the DCS loadout, but it was the Anton which is the most notable German fighter used in rocket experimental combat trials and the most widely equipped with WGr21 aside from the Me110G4. As for interesting rockets, the first wire-guided air-intercept missiles were carried by the Dora, love to see that as a loadout. IIRC there were three airframes setup in trials, stretching my memory here and can't remember if they ever shot anything down. Other people were doing similar things but were more conservatively still concentrating on aerial guns development. Germans already mooted the revolver cannon design the Aden and DEFA were direct copies of, in both 2cm and 3cm versions so was done in that department and just waiting for them to enter production when the war ended. But the Russians were still developing aerial guns like their excellent B20 rechambering of the Beresin HMG and heavy caliber Nudelmans. Postwar Yaks and Lavochkins would carry triple 20mm cannon for less or equal weight than their wartime ShVAK armament with one or two 20mm. In terms of handling qualities the Anton and Dora are the same aircraft: in construction terms the Dora is an A6 with an inline engine, the A8 is basically a refined A6. The only difference between A8 and D9 is the engine and individually customised equipment options. Some radial engine fighters have excellent reputations as fighter-bombers due to inherent sturdiness, however the reality is the BMW801 always ran very hot in a close fitted cowling and series development only helped the worst of it, such as the second bank overheating prematurely, it was never completely solved. The second issue in the lightweight fighter was vibration, which was shocking in early series and limited engine performance but was helped greatly with the fuselage lengthening of the A5, itself simply to allow future fitment of MG131 or MG151 in the upper cowling. Again it was never completely solved. Put simply due to those two factors it's not really a fighter you want to have any engine compartment damage in, it'd be like upsetting a balance beam. By comparison the Dora has a well protected engine system with an armoured oil cooler and annular radiator so between the give here and take there I think the two even out in groundfire survivability in real world terms. The third issue of the radial was indirectly the reason behind the Dora. The BMW801 just never liked altitude much. You could say the 801 was engineered for an operational height around the 6000m mark, with an emphasis on take off, acceleration and load bearing performance. A good engine for a medium bomber. It was adapted to the FW190, the airframe was originally designed around another R14 engine that fell out of production, the 801 was the only available alternative. But it makes sense since high performance bombers and fighters often share engines. Just that time frame means popular convention was medium overland ranges ahead of a fast moving front and 5000m combat height, early war thinking. The Spitfire MkI to III wasn't so hot above 6000m itself, the BF109E was an exception of the day being excellent at 7000m, so the whole altitude thing with the BMW801 makes the Anton a late war fighter with the altitude qualities of an early war fighter. Still okay among contemporaries, most Soviet fighters were no good at altitude either, the Anton was no worse than a Yak9D or an La5F in altitude performance, but paled against the MkIX Spit, P38, P39, P47, P51, etc. Still, once they got an engine boost system the only thing that could catch an FW190A (in this case actually, the G) at 1000 metres was a Hawker Typhoon or Tempest. Catching FW190A at low altitude was actually the specific reason for the Typhoon re-entering production, after initial production airframe failures and the RAF actually ordering a decent number of them. It was already shelved and pending cancellation before the second wind. Okay so Kurt Tank at Focke Wulf had a pet project for a new high altitude fighter and when RLM got interested they wanted him to modify the design elements to use existing FW190 production tooling, which became the Ta152 series. The idea was this and the new jet Me262 would replace all existing fighter types in service, but as production and in particular the complicated new engines would still be some time away RLM wanted a much simplified version to enter service in the interim: the Dora. So technically the Dora is a simplified version of the Anton and BF109 replacement, whilst at the same time it is also an Anton with an engine change. Many A8 wound up with Dora fins and several Dora wound up with Ta152 fins, all F8 got the blown canopy, standardized in later Dora production and many A8 had them. Various Dora variants have motorkanone and outer wing guns, some have a cut down version of the Ta152 engine with 1800hp at 8000 metres and over 2000 at take off. The entire long nose FW190 family might curtly be described as combining the best parts of the FW190A and BF109G/K without losing anything to either. For historical simmers there is one big glaring difference that affected aircraft selection: C3 fuel often had limited, local availability. B4 was everywhere. Later production Doras used B4, as per all later Messers and pending Ta152 of all types.