Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 262 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Though you are quite correct, I think amusingly those 633 Squadron aircraft actually are bombers with a covering over the nose. These seems a fairly obvious flat panel below the .303s

Absolutely! And the 4 x 20mm are missing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Elem said:

Absolutely! And the 4 x 20mm are missing too.

 

😄 and the hatch is in the wrong place and they have the 'Cooki'e bomb-bay.

 

Yup, should have looked a little more closely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

and I don't think that pathfinders ever used the fighter-bomber versions.

 

Aye laddie, the pathfinder squadrons of 8 Group did not use FBs. However 617 Sqdn (5 Group) acquired over time a handful of FBs (up to six IIRC) to mark targets from low altitude. The first mission was on the night of 5/6 April 1944 at Toulouse. This also resulted in the transfer of 627 Sqdn equipped with bomber versions to 5 Group. 627 Sqdn became low altitude marking specialists. 

 

One tactical factor in the comparative success of the pre-invasion raids should be mentioned. On the night of 5/6 April, 144 Lancasters of 5 Group attacked and, with unusual accuracy, destroyed an aircraft factory at Toulouse. The marking for this raid was carried out by 617 Squadron, not by Pathfinder aircraft. In the first low-level Mosquito marking flight of the war, Wing Commander Leonard Cheshire dropped his markers on his third pass over the factory building. The target was well defended but the Mosquito was so fast that it was not hit. Two Lancasters of 617 Squadron dropped further markers which were so reliably placed that the resultant bombing was of near perfect concentration. The crews carrying out this bombing were from ordinary squadrons of 5 Group, mostly without any special training. Within hours of the Toulouse operation, Sir Arthur Harris informed Air Vice-Marshal Cochrane that 5 Group could now operate as an independent force using its own marking techniques. The two Pathfinder Lancaster squadrons in 8 Group – 83 and 97 Squadrons – which had originally served in 5 Group and whose crews were largely drawn from 5 Group, were returned to Cochrane. More Mosquitoes were provided for 617 Squadron and 8 Group was also ordered to release a Mosquito squadron, 627 Squadron, to 5 Group.

Everitt, Chris. The Bomber Command War Diaries : An Operational Reference Book . Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition. 

Edited by busdriver
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Mr. Gatsby I presume.

 

Good Lord no, nothing so decadent. Here is a shot of his plane, as a hint. You obviously missed my 2017 movie "Firebird".

 

Which also featured some mountains on the Kuban map that would do quite well for a 633 Squadron remake, just to stay on topic. ;) 

 

1799088813_007Spitfire.thumb.JPG.94f2aeba1304ba4d5d3dff0d929f1103.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Wing Commander Leonard Cheshire dropped his markers on his third pass over the factory building.

 

IIRC, at some stage he flew a P-51 to mark targets deep in Germany.

Edited by EAF19_Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

😄 and the hatch is in the wrong place and they have the 'Cooki'e bomb-bay.

 

Yup, should have looked a little more closely!


Another way to tell is the windshield, the bombers and recon had an angled two piece windshield, while the fighter bombers and night fighters had a single flat piece

Those have the bomber windshield

unknown.png

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they used every flying Mossie in the world for that film, there was one of them that was based at Broughton near Chester so a bit of licence must be given to the film crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -EAGLE-Shifter said:

NIce, will be a mosquito for two players?

 

Only if you can convince a friend to sit on your right side (and slightly aft) and tell you what a shite job you're doing. ;)

 

Otherwise, no.

Edited by busdriver
buggered the spelling...
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

Only if you can convince a friend to sit on your ride side (and slightly aft) and tell you what a shite job you're doing.

You mean get married?

  • Haha 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, busdriver said:

 

Only if you can convince a friend to sit on your ride side (and slightly aft) and tell you what a shite job you're doing. ;)

 

Otherwise, no.

Sounds like a job for Bo and Bismarck..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one good looking Mossie for sure.

 

I wonder if it'll be possible to ditch the navigator (not in flight 😉) and fly the plane with only the pilot on board. Back in the classic IL-2 days the navigator always kinda annoyed me, since he was of no benefit.

 

Does anybody know if there were occasions where the Mosquito was flown in combat as a single seater in real life?

Edited by Fritz_X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

 

I wonder if it'll be possible to ditch the navigator (not in flight 😉) and fly the plane with only the pilot on board. Back in the classic IL-2 days the navigator always kinda annoyed me, since he was of no benefit.

 

Does anybody know if there were occasions where the Mosquito was flown in combat as a single seater in real life?

 

Found this on another site posted by someone called Jaberwocky who seems to  know  his stuff - no idea how accurate it is but here goes - AFDU is Air Fighting Development Unit of the RAF.

 

The AFDU did tactical trials of the F/B Mk VI in Mar-1943. The aircraft was fitted with Merlin 23 engines, allowing +14 lbs in combat boost, so was a little down on the speed and climb that can be expected of a Merlin 25 equipped example, but the results generally stand.

The aircraft was found to be nice to fly, with well balanced controls and effective ailerons. However, the inertial weight on the controls meant that “forces over 3G are very difficult to impose and detract from the general manoeuvrability as a fighter”. It was found to be tail heavy in a dive.

Elevator control at 450 mph IAS was “very heavy” but aileron control was “quite light”.

The aircraft was flown against the Spitfire V, IX and XII and the Typhoon IB.

Low altitude

It was found to be outpaced at low altitude by all fighters except the Spitfire Mk V. All S/E fighters were able to throw the Mosquito off their tails and get onto its tail themselves. The Mosquito was found to be unable to disengage whenever a S/E fighter got into position behind it.

However, its evasion was considered “particularly good”, making it difficult for fighters to get easy shooting solutions. The aircraft was easy to corkscrew and could weave easily, even at high speeds.

The exception to being out-turned and out-manoeuvred was against a Typhoon flown by “an inexperienced pilot”. However, "when the Typhoon, which has a turning circle similar to the FW 190, was well flown, it could make matters almost as difficult for the Mosquito as the Spitfire”.

Medium altitude:

Similar results to low altitude tests. There was a better chance for the Mosquito to escape though. It accelerated in a slight dive faster than the S/E fighters. Time to max speed from fast cruise was two minutes. The Mossie could lead the fighters on a stern chase and sometimes avoid combat outright using a slight dive. Best speed was at about 9,000 ft.

High altitude

The manoeuvrability of the Mossie was much diminished over 25,000 ft and aileron control “feels comparatively mushy”.


Enemy fighters

It was also flown against a captured 190A (probably an A3) and a 109G2.

The aircraft was found to be around about as fast as the enemy fighters near sea level, faster than both aircraft at 9,000 ft but slower at altitude, particularly against the 109 which was much superior over 17,000 ft. The Mossie was 700 ft/sec slower in initial climb than the 190A, and 1000 ft/sec slower than the 109G2 in climb. This deficiency increased with altitude.

Overall assessment

It was judged that the Mossie was not a good day fighter against S/E types. If in contact with enemy fighters it was “unable to go on the offensive and must content itself with defensive tactics”.

It was not judged to be expected to behave as a fighter against enemy S/E types.

It was considered “only able to be offensive against enemy bomber type aircraft”. It “cannot take on enemy single seater fighters effectively”.

It was also considered to be a poor aircraft for bomber escort and would “probably be a liability to a bomber force”.


Single seater

Interestingly, the AFDU converted their Mossie to a single seater and took out about 1,500 lbs of equipment from it (dropping all up weight to 18,800 lbs) and removed the inertia weight from the controls. The results improved the climb and manoeuvrability of the aircraft. Rate of climb shot up to over 3,000 ft/min for the first few thousand feet.

The consideration was that while the aircraft was “unable to be really effective against a Spitfire” in slow turns a lighter smaller version of the Mossie (ie the Hornet) could probably out-turn the Typhoon and “certainly” out-climb it. It was considered that it could “probably deal well with the typhoon of FW 190 class of fighter, especially by out-climbing them.”


With Merlin 25s:

The ADFU later tested a Mk VI with Merlin 25s against a Spitfire XII. It was found that the aircraft could outrun the Mk XII at ground level. Even if the Mk XII was 800 yards behind and 1,000 ft above, the Merlin 25 outfitted Mosquito VI could accelerate from a fast cruise and pull away.

The RoC was also significantly improved, starting at 3,800 ft/min. The aircraft could go from fast cruise at sea-level into a 2,000 ft cloud base in about 30 seconds.
 

I suspect it was only in the test mentioned above that the navigator was sent for a coffee break. The closest you will get to a single crewed Mossie will be the DH Hornet/Sea Hornet below. Developed separately but inspired by the Mossie no doubt, it entered service only after the war. 

image.png.9bf1a1286a583fd72643e7c73c3f7161.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

Only if you can convince a friend to sit on your right side (and slightly aft) and tell you what a shite job you're doing. ;)

 

Otherwise, no.

No, but I could fly with my son, learn to navigate, take off, landing. I think navigator was a bomb aimer too. But yes, for many isnt lucrative, make it for two players.

Better say no, than stupid young comments. :)

Edited by -EAGLE-Shifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fritz_X said:

Does anybody know if there were occasions where the Mosquito was flown in combat as a single seater in real life?

 

Squadron ORBs (Operations Record Book) that I've read only show pilots flying solo when initially checking out or conducting dusk/night landings.

294722126_solomosquito.thumb.jpg.2c46855a86f56169efad01e30833d35c.jpg

 

But the latter usually flown as a crew. It would be problematic at any rate. For nightfighters, the scopes (two of them) are on the right side of the instrument panel. For all versions/missions, the Gee navigation equipment is behind the pilot's seat mounted on the side wall.

 

24 minutes ago, -EAGLE-Shifter said:

No, but I could fly with my son, learn to navigate, take off, landing.

 

Say no more, here's what you're looking for. 

Edited by busdriver
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

This does not have multi-crew.

 

I do think a two-seater plane where the non-pilot isn't stuck in a turret would be good for the sim. Being able to give live guidance to a new pilot as they fly and land would be excellent for teaching

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was trying to teach someone to land, I sure as hell wouldn't pick a Mosquito to do it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

This does not have multi-crew.

 

I never said it did. But if you want somebody to sit beside you...pull up a chair, watch takeoffs and landings like the Nav/Radio did in the Mosquito. FS2020 is perfect for low level navigation...PERFECT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, busdriver said:

 

I never said it did. But if you want somebody to sit beside you...pull up a chair, watch takeoffs and landings like the Nav/Radio did in the Mosquito. FS2020 is perfect for low level navigation...PERFECT.

they bombed, too. "somebody to sit beside you...pull up a chair, watch takeoffs and landings like the Nav/Radio did in the Mosquito." you mean who would do that during a war right?

https://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2015/11/14/the-wartime-diaries-of-a-mosquito-navigator/

it was just a question, not a stimulus that only a fool would sit there. If not, then developers say no, for our style of playing, its too cheap for 

development. But thanks for your comments.

Edited by -EAGLE-Shifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the debate here? Mosquito FB: two-man crew, pilot and navigator. Mosquito bombers / recon: two-man crew, pilot and navigator / bombardier.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. In the FB, the guy's just a bacon-sandwich-powered GPS. In the bombers he gets to drop stuff as well, and in the night fighters he gets to twiddle the radar knobs and gives the pilot a vague idea of where the enemy is. 😉

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Yup. In the FB, the guy's just a bacon-sandwich-powered GPS. 

 

...and “Bitching Betty” as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to know is, having persuaded Winkle to land the thing, where did they find another brave but foolhardy volunteer to wave the paddles for him? Carrier decks are dangerous places at the best of times, but having to stand so close that you have to (hopefully) duck under the wing even if it doesn't go pear-shaped doesn't strike me as a good plan for anyone looking forward to having breakfast the next day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadn´t watched that before. Quite interesting stuff here.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers making those costumes are doing a great job! The main focus on the simulators is mainly vehicles and their infrastructure, but the pilots, ground people and infantry add a lot to the immersion. Thanks to all this work, it's become a really nice place to be :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Redglyph said:

The developers making those costumes are doing a great job! The main focus on the simulators is mainly vehicles and their infrastructure, but the pilots, ground people and infantry add a lot to the immersion. Thanks to all this work, it's become a really nice place to be :)

I'm missing the look of terror on their faces as I pass their burning aircraft whilst giving them the bird, but yeah, otherwise they look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 10:14 AM, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Anyone know how much ammo the four 20mms carry?

 

and the ammo capacity on the 7.69mm MGs?

 

Here's a sheet showing what a 235 Squadron of Coastal Command carried in Oct 1944. On the far left is a column of sorties per day. On 3 Oct the squadron flew 10 sorties. On the right side that last group of columns shows how much .303 and 20mm ammo was carried on those 10 sorties. In this case 20,000 rounds of .303 or 2,000 per airplane (divide that by 4 gets us 500 rounds per MG). Those 10 sorties carried 6,000 rounds of 20mm or 600 per airplane (150 rounds per gun). 

 

1080345838_235Sqdnammomarkup.thumb.jpg.101b26558dc3e25d53710b934dbaf0a1.jpg

 

This is not to suggest they couldn't load more rounds of either type of ammo. This is simply a representation of how Coastal Command armed their Mosquitos.

Edited by busdriver
typo
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 9:19 AM, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Now we are finally going to get the Mosquito at some point, surely carriers are the next logical step?

I'm with you on that one for sure buddy, fingers 🤞 and at some point in the future hey?. In the mean time all is good and there is a very happy customer here. I'm looking forward to the AA Vehicles as well. The thing I really don't understand is, why would someone be upset about the consistent good new's we receive when our Dev's announce new assets and improvements? If I heard correctly, Jason mention he was threatened within a interview he had. That was shocking news and totally unacceptable behavior of whomever that was. I think we are very lucky to have Jason W and wish him well always, as with the rest of the team, I really do, they have been very good to us. 

Peace to all.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we will get a 'move on' with carriers just because of the Mosquito... it was not exactly used in carrier ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trooper117 just beat me to it, but how in the world are carriers a logical follow on from the Mosquito?

 

That is some pretty desperate wishful thinking, seeing as not one carrier based aircraft has even been hinted at in any post by the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Trooper117 just beat me to it, but how in the world are carriers a logical follow on from the Mosquito?

 

That is some pretty desperate wishful thinking, seeing as not one carrier based aircraft has even been hinted at in any post by the developers.

Sorry guys, it was more a case of my flat British humour 😉

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

Sorry guys, it was more a case of my flat British humour 😉

Flat....like the top of a carrier?????

C O N F I R M E D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 11:16 AM, Heliopause said:

Wonderfull!

Any helferinnen in the future perhaps?

Flak-Helferinnen wouldn't fit in the current Gameplay, they mainly filled Non-Combatant Roles such as Operating Listening Stations, Radar Installations and sometimes Spotlights (which was Replaced with Hitler Youth Members in the Later Stages of the War) or Stereoscopic Rangefinders, you wouldn't find a Flak-Helferin on the Back of a Halftrack on the Easter/Western Front manning a Flak Gun. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...