DCS: de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB Mk VI Discussion

[Bozon]

What are those 2 big red button on the right side ?

 

Feathering the props.

 

They are so big and red that you just have to... no!... can’t resist!.... :no_sad:

 

About that...

Here is KA114 test pilot Keith Skilling talking about flying the mossie and some issues with the ergonomics of the cockpit, specifically about feathering the props in an emergency:

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Bozon

[stuart666]

There were 17 or 19 or something around that of those built - they had the hispanos removed & possibly two MGs too, and were all used on anti-shipping; would be interesting to see if you could hit a tank with it, I guess. Alll that extra mass ( armour too ) in different places would play havoc with the FM, I'd imagine... I'd think we get whichever versions are flyable & accessable :p

 

 

 

 

They kept the MG's for aiming purposes or so ive heard. But yes, its a trivial amount of aircraft built. They achieved far more than their modest numbers would indicate, but the rocket equipped versions were far more flexible.

 

 

 

 

Im genuinely stoked for the Mosquito, im really looking forward to it. In fact, its about the only DCS release in the near future (other than the Mig23) ive any interest in. Its certainly going to make the Normandy map much more interesting.

[peeter]

Yep, first 2 engine, ground attacker in dcs warbird :D

 

And if you sneack behind a fw190, those 4 20mm can do some damage !

 

But I think the k4 and D9 are still faster than the mossie with their cheat.. i mean MW50 on

[122sqn Bruv]

if she turns just a little bit better than the P51 when low and slow I think we will be fine dealing with all the current german aircraft. Nothing you can do speed wise anyhow.

[stuart666]

I think at high altitude, German fighters will be outclassed in a turn. Its kind of like the Tomcat, all that wing area, anything with high wing loading is just going to fall out in a turn.

 

 

At low altitude, yeah, without the WM50 or whatever it is being overhauled, im sure it will be possible to catch.

 

 

You have to wonder if ED are going to do any WW2 German radars, when we have something that will want to fly below it?

[Bozon]

I think at high altitude, German fighters will be outclassed in a turn. Its kind of like the Tomcat, all that wing area, anything with high wing loading is just going to fall out in a turn.

 

 

At low altitude, yeah, without the WM50 or whatever it is being overhauled, im sure it will be possible to catch.

 

 

You have to wonder if ED are going to do any WW2 German radars, when we have something that will want to fly below it?

 

You don’t want to fight the lufwaffe at high altitudes.

 

FB.VI has Merlin25s which were optimized for low altitudes and lose power at higher altitudes. Therefore it is quite fast on the deck (350+ mph at 18 boost), but the speed does not increase with altitude as quickly as with the other fighters. In the war they rarely operated higher than 10 kft, and typically under 5 kft.

 

The wing loading of the mossie (empty ~32 lbs/sqft) is significantly lower than the FW190D, and indeed she should handily out turn a dora, but the weight is significantly higher too. Mass factors at square power into induced drag, while wing area only factors as inverse linear. Therefore the induced drag for the mossie is significantly higher and this breaks the simplistic wing loading intuition. This effect expresses itself as a very steep back power curve - in other words, if you get too slow (“back of the power curve”) the drag shoots up and your plane sags. Mossie compensates this drag with 3300 total horses, so you really REALLY need that emergency power when stall fighting someone. At high altitudes this power is not available and the Dora will have an easier time turning with you (not to mention Dora vastly out climbs you at altitudes, and is so much faster that it is not funny :( ).

[grafspee]

 

The wing loading of the mossie (empty ~32 lbs/sqft) is significantly lower than the FW190D.

 

I can tell that wing loading isn't only thing which decide of turning performance.

Whole wing design is very important, shape, airfoil etc.

Wing loading would be legit thing if we would compare different planes with same wings or similar wings like spit MKIX and spit MKXIV for example.

Im not saying that fw 190 will turn better at low speed, im just saying that wing loading is not lone factor here.

[DD_Fenrir]

I can tell that wing loading isn't only thing which decide of turning performance.

Whole wing design is very important, shape, airfoil etc.

Wing loading would be legit thing if we would compare different planes with same wings or similar wings like spit MKIX and spit MKXIV for example.

Im not saying that fw 190 will turn better at low speed, im just saying that wing loading is not lone factor here.

 

Bozon just basically said everything you just corrected him on, immediately after the part you quoted.

 

Second point is that even comparing the wingloading on two related but different airframes with identical wing planforms will not provide all the answers as power loading can significantly alter the equation; for your example, the Spitfire XIV, though heavier than the IX might well have enough Specific Excess Thrust to mitigate any deficiency in wingloading and still turn as tightly, or as we know from real world tests, nearly tight as the IX, more so than a direct comparison then wing loading or planform might suggest.

[grafspee]

Bozon just basically said everything you just corrected him on, immediately after the part you quoted.

 

Second point is that even comparing the wingloading on two related but different airframes with identical wing planforms will not provide all the answers as power loading can significantly alter the equation; for your example, the Spitfire XIV, though heavier than the IX might well have enough Specific Excess Thrust to mitigate any deficiency in wingloading and still turn as tightly, or as we know from real world tests, nearly tight as the IX, more so than a direct comparison then wing loading or planform might suggest.

 

I haven't get that far yet.:P

Yes and no, in some case mk XIV will turn better in other worse

I just said that wing loading on different wings provide almost non performance info, and i said that wing loading provide much more info for different planes with same wing design.

High power will provide higher sustained G but not provide higher peak G for given airspeed.

Anyway Fw 190 wing design isn't know for good sustained turn rate so i would guess that at low speed Mossie will be king here.

Am i remember this correctly Mossie has something like 6G limit that will handicap high speed performance.Another question how stick forces are looking in Mossie because breaking apart at 8G would be a thing in DCS with light stick forces.

Edited March 12, 2020 by grafspee

[Bozon]

Stick forces were indeed an issue in the Mossie at high speeds and high G. At low speeds they were very gentle and pleasant by all accounts. The mosquito has a mass attached to the end of a lever that is in turn connected to one of the elevator cables pulleys. The torque provided by the weight of this mass through the lever added resistance to stick pull, which scales with G load. Reportedly, this can be significant and make the stick very stiff when pulling many G’s. Some pilots of fighter and fighter-bomber variants removed this device. I don’t know how common was this practice. Stick forces in the roll still stayed quite high at high speeds.

 

I have no idea what data DCS will use and how they will model this. Will be interesting to see.

[grafspee]

Stick forces were indeed an issue in the Mossie at high speeds and high G. At low speeds they were very gentle and pleasant by all accounts. The mosquito has a mass attached to the end of a lever that is in turn connected to one of the elevator cables pulleys. The torque provided by the weight of this mass through the lever added resistance to stick pull, which scales with G load. Reportedly, this can be significant and make the stick very stiff when pulling many G’s. Some pilots of fighter and fighter-bomber variants removed this device. I don’t know how common was this practice. Stick forces in the roll still stayed quite high at high speeds.

 

I have no idea what data DCS will use and how they will model this. Will be interesting to see.

 

Oh this is good news because in DCS i don't feel G so it would be utter difficulty to avoid structural damage from excessive G at high speeds. I still see often on MP servers Spitfires ending up in ball of fire when he pulls too much g to avoid my attack.( Btw, i have no idea why spit catch fire in case of wing breaks up )

Edited March 13, 2020 by grafspee

[philstyle]

Love the discussion about the use of brakes to keep the mozzie steady at 3:45 in this video:

 

 

That puts paid to a whole bunch of arm-chair aviators.

[grafspee]

Love the discussion about the use of brakes to keep the mozzie steady at 3:45 in this video:

 

 

That puts paid to a whole bunch of arm-chair aviators.

 

Nice vid.

[Richard Dastardly]

Apparently in the bomber/PR version stick force was light right across the speed range ( and it was notoriously tail heavy at low speed ). The FB version with all those guns in the nose might be a bit less twitchy I guess.

[grafspee]

Apparently in the bomber/PR version stick force was light right across the speed range ( and it was notoriously tail heavy at low speed ). The FB version with all those guns in the nose might be a bit less twitchy I guess.

 

I was afraid about it, so DCS Mossie will loose wings quite often then.

[SpitFlyer]

I was afraid about it, so DCS Mossie will loose wings quite often then.

 

I used to lose my wings quite a lot when I started on the Spitfire IX here. I "solved" this problem by tinkering with the joystick response curves in "Option /Control/Axis Tune". I just put a lot of positive curvature on the pitch and roll (so that a lot of stick movement gave a little aileron movement).

I can still snap off the wings if I go to full-back stick though!

 

As to why it burst into flames ... well, that's "damage", init? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[122sqn Bruv]

I used to lose my wings quite a lot when I started on the Spitfire IX here. I "solved" this problem by tinkering with the joystick response curves in "Option /Control/Axis Tune". I just put a lot of positive curvature on the pitch and roll (so that a lot of stick movement gave a little aileron movement).

I can still snap off the wings if I go to full-back stick though!

 

As to why it burst into flames ... well, that's "damage", init? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

 

hey spit flyer, I was on Hayling Island (langstone hotel) 2 weeks ago for a speed awareness course. Thankfully they didn't catch me in my Spitfire. :pilotfly:

 

 

 

My positive curve is 20, with a deadzone of 5. All other WW2 modules seem less twitchy than the spit so I can be more aggressive with them.

 

 

and lastly this thread is about the Mossie so putting it back on track I can't wait to fly 2 merlins at the same time!

[DD_Fenrir]

I'm just thinking about all that torque and non-counter rotating props...!

[tapi]

Close up cockpit tour (starts at 4:12):

${1}

 

EDIT: attaching YT vid seems not work so here is the link:

Edited March 15, 2020 by tapi

[Bozon]

Also the Kermit Weeks tour of his mosquito (not in flying condition at all).

Looks like a vagabond used to sleep in it or something. It is a mess...

 

${1}

 

[Richard Dastardly]

I'm just thinking about all that torque and non-counter rotating props...!

 

Yep, I've read reports that it can be a real handful on takeoff ( landing too ). I can't wait for this beast :) seems a quintessential WW2 British aircraft, godly in the air & godawful anywhere else...

[grafspee]

Mossie is single fuselage plane so i ques that prop wash on vertical stab is very low.

Brakes are only mean to control this plane in early roll i think.

[Bozon]

Mossie is single fuselage plane so i ques that prop wash on vertical stab is very low.

Brakes are only mean to control this plane in early roll i think.

 

Twin engines can use differential throttling to control yaw. The yaw tendencies on takeoffs were a problem only to inexperienced pilots and those who transitioned from single engines and were not used to control the plane this way.

[grafspee]

Twin engines can use differential throttling to control yaw. The yaw tendencies on takeoffs were a problem only to inexperienced pilots and those who transitioned from single engines and were not used to control the plane this way.

 

I just imagine that in DCS it will be quite difficult.My warthog hotas will run out of axis to control all of this :P

Edited March 16, 2020 by grafspee

[Richard Dastardly]

I just imagine that in DCS it will be quite difficult.My warthog hotas will run out of axis to control all of this :P

 

Can probably get away with a combined slider & two seperates - most of the time you're going to want both engines to have more or less the same output anyway.