Jump to content

WW2 Era Trainer...


Recommended Posts

OK, I’m sure it sounds like a crazy idea...

 

but strapping in to a front line fighter and hoping “tally ho!” will work ok is also a bit crazy

 

The little Yak is a good trainer, but the tricycle undercarriage limits its usefulness here. Definitely needs to be a taildragger

 

Something like what the L-39 does for the jet era.


Probably the Harvard / Texan would be the best fit???

 

Good idea?

... or waste of resources...?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the enthusiasm, but as Razo+r pointed out we have access to the Free TF-51. I think adding another trainer would indeed be a waste of resources, especially given the fact that there are more pressing things to be added to the WWII planeset like Stuka/Dauntless, and AI He-111/C-47. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The English are little represented, I’d love to have a Hawker Typhoon to face the A-8 and also an AI B-24 to use on my D9 missions. I also would love a russian fighter, like the Yak-9 and Some AI attack aircrafts like the Pe-2 and Il-2 :thumbup:

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

TF-51 is completely missing the point though... 

 

In terms of power, ground handling and flight characteristics the TF-51 is a full-fat Mustang.  I’d see it more as an OTU / OCU type aircraft.

 

Allied WW2 aircrew would have progressed through the Tiger Moth or Stearman basic trainers and Texan / Harvard advanced trainer before getting in a fully fledged fighter.

 

Enough posters on here suggest that take off and landing behaviour of WW2 taildraggers is a barrier to wider take up.

 

The comparison I used above ^^ re the L-39 in the jet class is valid. The L-39 is a great little aircraft to fly and perfect technique in.  The Yak is similar, but with its tricycle gear it’s not a good warbird trainer

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the Christen Eagle II ?

 

It's light, low-powered, multi-crew, tail-dragger. And that's what the OP is asking for, right? The CEII seems to be a reasonable stand-in for a Tiger Moth or Bücker Bü 131, but without the huge resources needed to create a totally new aircraft. Unless a 3rd-party developer steps in, although I can't think of any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, xvii-Dietrich said:

What about the Christen Eagle II ?

 

It's light, low-powered, multi-crew, tail-dragger. And that's what the OP is asking for, right? The CEII seems to be a reasonable stand-in for a Tiger Moth or Bücker Bü 131, but without the huge resources needed to create a totally new aircraft. Unless a 3rd-party developer steps in, although I can't think of any.

I'm not so sure about it.

I've no idea how the Tiger Moth handles (except for what I've read) but I'm sure it's nothing like a modern aerobatics plane (i.e. like an RC aircraft).

 

On the other hand In my opinion the TF-51 is a great trainer for a WW2 fighter.

First of all, it's free so you don't have to risk anything if you want to try it out.

Also it's relatively easy to fly properly.

 

In my opinion it's not about the aircraft your flying but how your flying it.

You can just as easily learn to fly warbirds with a 109 if instead of combat you start with learning coordinated flight, then landing patterns, stalls, flying near engine limitations and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 5 hours in a moth, it flies nothing like a CE2 (at least compared to the sim)  except in the fact it is a tail dragger, most ww2 moths didnt even have a tailwheel but a skid, no brakes and only a tube to see fuel level. 

 

It suffers from varying amounts of adverse yaw depending on how it is rigged, leaks oil as much as any radial and will not let you take your hands off the controls, trim is crucial and the slats are lockable for T/O and landing. 

 

That being said, once in the air it handles beautifully especially in spins, comes out nicely. In wind though it is a handful, more so then all but one aircraft i have flown, being the rearwin sporter, and that has brakes. The moth does actually have a decent amount of the power and does leap off the ground, it climbs flatter then most aircraft.

 

Not to mention that hand swinging would be an interesting aspect in DCS.

 

I haven't flown a ww2 fighter, but i have been in a harvard at duxford. my short experiance in the harvard tells me that compared to the mustang and spitfire it doesnt have the excess of power that those have, in fact i would say it is underpowered, it also has a center flap which in a lot of ones still flying today have been wired shut. i believe also that they start up more like a spitfire then a mustang.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PL_Harpoon@zcrazyx  Fair enough. I agree with you both that the CEII will not be like a Tiger Moth or Bü 131 in terms of handling. My impression from the original poster was he was just after a tail-dragger to practice on and, for some reason, wasn't happy with the TF-51D. Giving it some more thought, the TF-51D really makes the most sense, but the CEII is an alternative... and seems better than ED devoting resources to building a dedicated WW2-era trainer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, xvii-Dietrich said:

@PL_Harpoon@zcrazyx  Fair enough. I agree with you both that the CEII will not be like a Tiger Moth or Bü 131 in terms of handling. My impression from the original poster was he was just after a tail-dragger to practice on and, for some reason, wasn't happy with the TF-51D. Giving it some more thought, the TF-51D really makes the most sense, but the CEII is an alternative... and seems better than ED devoting resources to building a dedicated WW2-era trainer.

 

I agree somewhat with what you say, the TF is literally a full fat aircraft, where as the CE2 is more lairy so you would be stepping down to a ww2 aircraft rather then stepping up from say a ww2 trainer.

 

If the tf51 had the back seat moddled it would be nice but from what i understand there are two different TF51s, one where they just take the rear tank out and put a seat in and another where they actually put a full dash board.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PL_Harpoon said:

TBH, giving the rear seat a dash and a set of controls and adding multi crew would make a TF-51 a perfect solution for those who want to learn with an instructor.

I'd pay $25ish for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Them updating the TF51 would be mint, issue is how to monetize it, as they use it more to get people interested in ww2 it seems rather then as a trainer, would be neat to have it fund raised by current players as i would defo pay up $25 for a two seater that could be used later on to train new people to fly the older warbirds, could also be visually used to update the P-51. 

 

everyone wins, we get a new useable trainer, ED gets money and the P51 gets updated visually. (if enough people back it that is)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tail dragger version of the Yak (Yak-50) could be a good dynamic stand in.

 

It's not era correct or anything and it's not a two seater but between being an appropriate size, configuration it could be a decent stand in and provide a quick win and/or more variety to DCS.

 

Just a thought.

 

 


Edited by reece146
Link to post
Share on other sites

There was that photo “love in” with Wags and the A2A guys at the trade show a year or so ago. Talk of future collaboration then we heard no more... 

 

A2A already have their accu-sim T-6... Obviously you couldn’t just drop it into DCS but even so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I bought the CEII... and here’s the thing...

 

... it’s an absolute blast to fly - easy enough to taxi, take off can be controlled with a little rudder, and I managed a nice take off, circuit and landing on my first flight (ok, apart from the nose over as I brought it to rest)... so my 25-30 years of simulated flying has taught me something🙂

 

I’d be convinced if the warbird ground handling was a bit amped up from the CEII, but it just isn’t - at least with my controls setup. It’s way more extreme.


So - given the FW-190s better reputation (out of the RL warbirds represented in DCS), I put a few hours in on taxi and take off.

 

First, mapping L & R wheel brakes to a joystick hat and monitoring progress with F2 view really did crack taxiing

 

Take offs all still seem to end the same way though - dropping the left wing / right wing lift and swing to the left... despite full right rudder and stick. Given the obvious lift on the right wing, should I have centred the stick before this point in the T/O???

 

This brings me back full circle to the CEII and FMs. There has been quite a debate on the CEII FM, especially from RL CEII pilots, but overall the view seems to be that the FM is pretty good, if slightly lacking in need for rudder input on some aero manoeuvres.
 

In that context, the ED warbird FMs do seem hard to explain.  There’s plenty of RL pilot accounts online, and ground loops and tricky handling are certainly a feature that needs modelling - BUT the extreme behaviour of the DCS warbirds doesn’t seem to mirror pilot accounts.
 

I could probably accept that the FMs are good and that we are limited by our input devices and limited sensory inputs - but that doesn’t explain happy flying in the CEII or Yak (or previously in the well regarded A2A study sims)

 

It will be very interesting to see how the Corsair compares, as the first non-ED warbird (?). If the CEII is the prop FM development platform for Magnitude, then the Corsair could be very good (YMMV...!)

 

These factors also leave me somewhat concerned for the Mossie, which I’m very much looking forward to and is the main motivation for trying to get to grips with the taildragger ground handling

 


Edited by rkk01
Link to post
Share on other sites

ake offs all still seem to end the same way though - dropping the left wing / right wing lift and swing to the left... despite full right rudder and stick. Given the obvious lift on the right wing, should I have centred the stick before this point in the T/O???

 

 

If you take off too early or force it early on, you will stall, tipp over and usually crash. 

 

And another thing, ED changed the ground handling by reducing the tire friction, for some reason... 


Edited by razo+r
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, razo+r said:

If you take off too early or force it early on, you will stall, tipp over and usually crash. 

 


So - centre the stick, say 50kph? and allow smooth airflow over the surfaces... rather than holding it in 3 point / tail wheel lock and forcing increased lift

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rkk01 said:

OK, so I bought the CEII... and here’s the thing...

 

... it’s an absolute blast to fly - easy enough to taxi, take off can be controlled with a little rudder, and I managed a nice take off, circuit and landing on my first flight (ok, apart from the nose over as I brought it to rest)... so my 25-30 years of simulated flying has taught me something🙂

 

I’d be convinced if the warbird ground handling was a bit amped up from the CEII, but it just isn’t - at least with my controls setup. It’s way more extreme.


So - given the FW-190s better reputation (out of the RL warbirds represented in DCS), I put a few hours in on taxi and take off.

 

First, mapping L & R wheel brakes to a joystick hat and monitoring progress with F2 view really did crack taxiing

 

Take offs all still seem to end the same way though - dropping the left wing / right wing lift and swing to the left... despite full right rudder and stick. Given the obvious lift on the right wing, should I have centred the stick before this point in the T/O???

 

This brings me back full circle to the CEII and FMs. There has been quite a debate on the CEII FM, especially from RL CEII pilots, but overall the view seems to be that the FM is pretty good, if slightly lacking in need for rudder input on some aero manoeuvres.
 

In that context, the ED warbird FMs do seem hard to explain.  There’s plenty of RL pilot accounts online, and ground loops and tricky handling are certainly a feature that needs modelling - BUT the extreme behaviour of the DCS warbirds doesn’t seem to mirror pilot accounts.
 

I could probably accept that the FMs are good and that we are limited by our input devices and limited sensory inputs - but that doesn’t explain happy flying in the CEII or Yak (or previously in the well regarded A2A study sims)

 

It will be very interesting to see how the Corsair compares, as the first non-ED warbird (?). If the CEII is the prop FM development platform for Magnitude, then the Corsair could be very good (YMMV...!)

 

These factors also leave me somewhat concerned for the Mossie, which I’m very much looking forward to and is the main motivation for trying to get to grips with the taildragger ground handling

 

 


The CEII has 200bhp, the Spit IX has around 1500...

 

After time in the DCS Spitfire I find the CEIIs flight model reminds me of the old days of IL2 or EDs original simple flight model. The CEIIs flight model isn’t bad I just find it hard to believe that a lightweight aircraft the prop and engine power settings have so little influence on the way it flies. I prefer the feel of the Yak52s FM , like the Spit it’s FM feels joined up with everything you do impacting on the way they fly.

 

Surely we buy DCS warbirds for ultimate realism, there are other sims that provide the action orientated easy to pick up and fly fly warbird. When I fly the DCS Spit my immersion meter is off the scale compared to other sims, that’s mostly because I feel like I’m flying a WW2 fighter, EDs flight models make these aircraft like a living thing. Let’s not forget that the guys who flew these things may have been kids but by WW2 they weren’t untrained, by mid war they’d on average for the RAF at least have 18 months of specific training and around 250 flight hours before they reached combat. 

 


Edited by Mogster
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...