Developer Diary 290 - Discussion

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

Is there a particular greengrocer in France that you have an issue with? 

 

Well... I think, to save face, I now have to! ? 

[BladeMeister]

The Mossie is looking Fan-Damn-Tabulos. Good Work 1C.  Two Mossies in one year is going to be fun.

 

S!Blade<><

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

What in the world are you going on about? We already have plenty of ueber-rare (but yet operational) mods for German planes - gyro gunsight for the 262 and Dora-9, 1.98 ata and 500 kg bombs for the K-4, dual 20 mm gunpods for the A-5, etc. If you're going to be consistent in your argument, you need to say those are unicorn mods as well. 

 

Wait!!? Does this mean that the tide is turning against the anti-unicorn crowd??! Also - does this mean we can get the Mk-103 equipped Me-410, even though they were only ever station in Norway (as far as I can tell)!

 

2 hours ago, Asgar said:

There was:
ONE 190 A5 with MK 103,

FOUR A8 with MK 103

 

That makes at least five Fw-190 with Mk-103... I am personally keen on this, as it'd involve taking an excellent high-velocity gun and making it much worse through high dispersion caused by the wing being insufficiently rigid - there is irony in that.

 

  

31 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

I don't recall seeing that in any mission logs, but I'd need to go back through them to see if anything like that is mentioned. My initial guess is no, they didn't carry both rockets and that cannon at the same time. 

 

It makes sense given that the weapons have different delivery profiles, and were considered alternative solutions to the same problem (i.e. the success of the RP-3 largely undermined the Tse-Tse development effort). So, probably a less than completely realistic loadout?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

@busdriver two gunsights? that sounds interesting, do you have a photos or diagrams of how that looked like?  I thought they would have the special gunsight that could deflect the reticle like in the rocket armed Typhoons.

Also looks like the Hurricane with 40mm cannons would have that gunsight too, since the guns are tilted downwards slightly, but currently in game they shoot straight which wouldn't be correct. I don't know if @LukeFF can look into this to confirm they used them.

[JG1_Wittmann]

3 hours ago, CountZero said:

 

how many ar-234B2 were flying over Normandy, ill give up big gun on mosquito if instead ar-234b2 LW gets Do-217 ?

Well,    I believe a 234 flew over the Normandy Beaches,    how many 57mm gun mosquitoes, out of the 18,   ever flew over Normandy, or France for that matter ?  Not really the best question  since there were over 200 AR 234''s  produced  compared to 18, 57mm mosquitoes.

 

3 hours ago, Asgar said:

dude... stop asking for prototypes you saw in War Thunder

There was:
ONE 190 A5 with MK 103,

FOUR A8 with MK 103
no records on any produced F-4s
and no records on F-6s build

Have never played Warthunder,   you must be confusing me with one of your old buddies there.

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

What in the world are you going on about? We already have plenty of ueber-rare (but yet operational) mods for German planes - gyro gunsight for the 262 and Dora-9, 1.98 ata and 500 kg bombs for the K-4, dual 20 mm gunpods for the A-5, etc. If you're going to be consistent in your argument, you need to say those are unicorn mods as well. 

That is a good list of low #  modifications.  The D9  is  so poorly made as far as flight model,   That is  very much a Unicorn on MP servers, I can honestly not remember the last time I have seen one fly online.   The A5 having twin 20 pods I will give you, and I have used it,  The problem, is they left all of the Decent gun options out of the A6 they released and gave us no  gun ( although their pre-release notes I believe told us we were going to get the R2, anti-bomber version), field install kits for the A6,  In fact, We got  190 G models basically, or a vanilla A6  and other than the 30 mk108 left the A8 out of the mix as well. The fact that we got the twin 20's for the A%, and didn't get jack for the A6 makes no sense, it is a step back in firepower on a newer AC.  I don't fly the 262 so I can't comment on the gyro gun-sight, have used it in the D9 on rare occasions,  maybe a year or so ago and found it to be good for longer shots on larger AC targets That aren't maneuvering.

 

This is not a commentary  declaring that the Unicorn Mosquito shouldn't get to have it's 57mm gun.  All of the AC,  in game, should eventually be able to field all of the options available to it select-able by the user.  Ammo loadout should also be selectable as well instead of the pre-made options.  If someone wants every 4th round to be AP, they should be able to set that,   just like in CLOD where I believe loadout was adjustable, and that goes in Tanks or the trucks as well.

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@busdriver two gunsights? that sounds interesting, do you have a photos or diagrams of how that looked like? 

 

No I don't, I [thought I] read about it in A Most Secret Squadron. I'll have to try and find the reference.

 

edit: I must have read the remark about two sights in another book because...

 

 

This variant of the Mosquito was quickly christened the Tsetse from the African insect similar to and just as harmful as the Mosquito. The arc-shaped magazine, holding 24 rounds of 57 mm armour plated HE shells capped with Tracer, was positioned vertically about midship, feeding into the breech block. The breech block was behind the crew, and the barrel extended below the floor of the cockpit, the muzzle protruding below the fairing of the nose. The 4 Browning .303 mm front guns, that had been retained, projected beyond the nose cone, above the muzzle of the big gun.

 

All these guns were sighted through one reflector sight, the firing buttons being on the control column. The big gun had a muzzle velocity of 2,950 feet per second. (For the technically minded, the trajectory of the shell was very flat when fired in level flight. The gun was synchronised so that the sight coincided with the line of flight at 500 and 1,000 yards, the line of sight being 10 inches above the line of sight at 750 yards.)

 

The optimum angle of dive was 30 degrees below the horizontal, and the ideal range at which to open fire was 1,800 to 1,500 yards. It was necessary to sight separately each round, with fresh firing pressure applied each time. It was possible to fire up to 6 rounds in a dive, but the last shot should be fired while the aircraft is no nearer the target than 500 yards.

Curtis, Des. Most Secret Squadron: The First Full Story of 618 Squadron and its Special Detachment Anti-U-Boat Mosquitos . Grub Street Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by busdriver

[56RAF_Stickz]

13 minutes ago, busdriver said:

No I don't, I read about it in A Most Secret Squadron. I'll have to try and find the reference.

page 152 however it doesnt say it was two different gunsights as such, just that the gun had a flat trajectory and wsa set tp co-incide at 500 and 1000yds.

As for someones bollox about it being relegated to anti shipping - it was planned for anti sub warfare use. Did it pretty successfully in the Bay of Biscay from late Oct43 as well and it seems from Des Curtis comments that it was pretty accurate - especially considering your doing it under very heavy flak

ha ha your edit by passed me

[busdriver]

43 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

ha ha your edit by passed me

 

I appreciate folks keeping me honest.  I'm scratching my cranium trying to recall which book I read the mention of two gunsights. Guessing it was one of Martin Bowman's. Still looking.

 

But I do wonder about the remark that the Molins had a flat trajectory when fired in level flight considering it is depressed below the waterline.

Edited August 21, 2021 by busdriver

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Watched that video doc about the Tsetse Mossie. Wasn't it a Mk. XVIII, not a Mk. VI? At least that was the impression the interviews of the pilots Who flew it gave me. And it had extra armor plates etc. Just asking. A very nice looking plane that Mosquito

Edited August 21, 2021 by LLv34_Flanker

[Soilworker]

When I was a kid there was an aircraft museum at Wigram airforce base in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Whether or not it's still there I do not know.) They had the cockpit of a Mosquito set up in front of a projector screen and you could sit in it and fly the famous prison bombing mission. 

This was so unbelievably cool as a kid and I had a big soft spot for the Mosquito as a result. I'm really looking forward to getting back in that cockpit in VR. 

 

The model looks amazing, well done devs! 

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S! 

 

Watched that video doc about the Tsetse Mossie. Wasn't it a Mk. XVIII, not a Mk. VI? At least that was the impression the interviews of the pilots Who flew it gave me. And it had extra armor plates etc. Just asking. A very nice looking plane that Mosquito

 

The Mk XVIII was based on the Mk VI. As you say, it had extra armour, in addition to the gun. So technically, we are getting two different Mossie Marks. I don't think anyone is going to complain though. At least, not unless they get around to adding player-operated U-Boats to the game. ?

[CountZero]

6 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Well,    I believe a 234 flew over the Normandy Beaches,    how many 57mm gun mosquitoes, out of the 18,   ever flew over Normandy, or France for that matter ?  Not really the best question  since there were over 200 AR 234''s  produced  compared to 18, 57mm mosquitoes.

...

...

nah there was 0 Ar-234B2 over Normandy, what you think about is prototype V5 and V7 versions with skates and jettisonable trolley, no bombs, differant engines, thinner hull, nothing like one game is gona make, and on top their base is not even on map we gona get.
So how is a problem one modification on Mosquito, but not whole ufo type airplane out of place on axis side ? 

 

 

I would not made both, i would just stick to what was used on map they making, but they gota sell stuff so we get 262s, 234s, tigers, ferdinands and so on... so im waiting patiantly for YP-80, Meteor, Yak-9UT, Pershing and so ...

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by CountZero

[Asgar]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

I would not made both, i would just stick to what was used on map they making, but they gota sell stuff so we get 262s, 234s, tigers, ferdinands and so on... so im waiting patiantly for YP-80, Meteor, Yak-9UT, Pershing and so ...

 

not sure what the 262, Tiger and Ferdinand do on your list? Tiger and Ferdinand were a key part of the Kursk offensive in the German doctrine and 262s participated in Operation Bodenplatte... so argument invalid?

[ER*Wumme]

Oh ...  Mossie on the way . Wundervoll !!!

Mossie in IL 2 and a Mossie in DCS.   If the IL-2-Team gives us the same quality of clouds as in DCS then I have problem which one to choose. 

Horrido !

[ZiggyZiggyStar]

2 hours ago, Soilworker said:

When I was a kid there was an aircraft museum at Wigram airforce base in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Whether or not it's still there I do not know.) They had the cockpit of a Mosquito set up in front of a projector screen and you could sit in it and fly the famous prison bombing mission. 

This was so unbelievably cool as a kid and I had a big soft spot for the Mosquito as a result. I'm really looking forward to getting back in that cockpit in VR. 

 

The model looks amazing, well done devs! 

Yes, the RNZAF Museum is still at Wigram, even though it is no longer an RNZAF base any longer. I was there a few years ago and had a go on the Mosquito simulator you mention, I think I was attacking ships though. (Maybe several mission choices?). 
With VR and jet pad and/or base shakers, the experience is now even better on my home setup than at the museum. We live at a time when flight-simming has never been so amazing. I can’t wait to feel the thudding of the cannon with the jetpad and bass shaker!!

[DD_Arthur]

7 hours ago, busdriver said:

But I do wonder about the remark that the Molins had a flat trajectory when fired in level flight considering it is depressed below the waterline.

 

The six pounder was an anti tank weapon with a pretty decent muzzle velocity so nothing surprising about having a flat trajectory.

 

 I was under the impression it was pretty accurate and I’m sure I’ve read an account of it shooting down a JU 88 over the Bay of Biscay.

 

However, the Molins installation took the flying gun concept to the extremes and it was simply less versatile than the standard aircraft.

 

As a U boat killer it was also less efficient than the solid shot 60lb rocket installation.

 

Question; for anti shipping strikes off the Norwegian coast did they mount solid shot RP or  explosive warheads?

[senseispcc]

A wonder fighter bomber that seems well reproduce, Thanks to the team! 

[56RAF_Stickz]

7 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Question; for anti shipping strikes off the Norwegian coast did they mount solid shot RP or  explosive warheads?

originally it was HE, then switched to solid/AP when it was apparent that was more effective at sinking the ships. The comments in a separate little war suggest the German flak ship gunners hated the HE more though just because it was aimed more at them and caused greater casualities although only superficial damage (they dont appear to have asked the ships engine maintenance crews their preference)

[busdriver]

56 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

The six pounder was an anti tank weapon with a pretty decent muzzle velocity so nothing surprising about having a flat trajectory

Ah well the point I’m trying to make is that the gun barrel is depressed below the waterline of the aircraft. The argument can be made that in level flight the aircraft’s pitch attitude is a couple degrees nose up, but for the round’s path to travel up through the reticule at 500 yards and then descend back through it at 1000 yards has me wondering how this would happen in a 30 degree dive. In the Jurassic Era we opened fire at ~2000 feet when strafing with the M61 20mm. 

 

You are correct in your recollection that one shot down a Ju-88.

6 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

Watched that video doc about the Tsetse Mossie. Wasn't it a Mk. XVIII, not a Mk. VI?

Yes…they were all conversions of the FB.VI.

[Bremspropeller]

Looks like there is a convergence of opinion about hunting ships with large guns:

The B-25G/H strafers also found the 75mm gun to be less than optimal for the job, so they replaced it with more M2s or just stuck to skip-bombing.

 

I'd guess the downward deflection of the 57mm gun was either due to internal-space  issues or to limit the required nose-down angle and hence providing for a better chance for recovery* with the given limitations on aircraft-maneuverability. I certainly would feel uneasy flying in a hot, twin-engined high-wingloaded aircraft downhill to point a large gun boresighted to the fuselage's waterline.

 

___

* Should be a non-issue, as we've recently learned in another forum that re-rigging the flight-controls ain't no big deal at all...

[Spaz-505]

Awesome!.. very excited for this release!!!  The addition of the Mosquito will add hours of fun!!! Thanks to the entire IL2 Team for continuing to develop this awesome sim!!!  Sure would love to see this make its way over to the Pacific Theatre!!!

[Tinku74]

Below the waterline? First time I hear about the amphibious Mossie ?

Edited August 21, 2021 by Tinku74

[56RAF_Stickz]

23 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Ah well the point I’m trying to make is that the gun barrel is depressed below the waterline of the aircraft.

I know you got more books on subject busdriver than me, but I cannot find any reference to say that the gun barrel was depressed below the aircraft axis. Bar those comments re 500, 1000yds and 10" above gunsight at 750yd. Perhaps someone years ago misinterpreted the idea of aiming shooting below the ships waterline (much like with the AP rockets) with the aircraft axis.

 

12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Looks like there is a convergence of opinion about hunting ships with large guns:

The B-25G/H strafers also found the 75mm gun to be less than optimal for the job, so they replaced it with more M2s or just stuck to skip-bombing.

Its usually a question of "is there better alternative", I would guess skip bombing a uboat is pretty difficult which was the role they envisaged gun for and rockets still not available.

I guess it then depends on description of success. The mossies did hit several u boats of StNazaire, and with a 50mm hole its not gonna be keen to submerge again, (even if it has water depth) making it vulnerable to more attacks. Then it also made the Germans expend resources defending the subs when surfaced which made them more visible.

The rockets came along and seem more effective when employed in mass formations, but they still seem to have persisted with molins. A sub is a small target but against cargo ships the gun damage would be smaller possibly more patchable than 4 or 5 rocket impacts

 

12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

* Should be a non-issue, as we've recently learned in another forum that re-rigging the flight-controls ain't no big deal at all...

 

ha ha yeah I read that, obviously from someone who was never an 1940s lowly airframe erk whose life was going to go downhill real fast when the F700 got read, and the F720 he signed for incorporating an sti didnt match. A pilot doesnt have the authority to override an engineering officer willy nilly, the RAF dont work like that, war or not. Even if you could just have a different weight hanging about to use.

 

[Bremspropeller]

45 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

Its usually a question of "is there better alternative", I would guess skip bombing a uboat is pretty difficult which was the role they envisaged gun for and rockets still not available.

I guess it then depends on description of success. The mossies did hit several u boats of StNazaire, and with a 50mm hole its not gonna be keen to submerge again, (even if it has water depth) making it vulnerable to more attacks. Then it also made the Germans expend resources defending the subs when surfaced which made them more visible.

The rockets came along and seem more effective when employed in mass formations, but they still seem to have persisted with molins. A sub is a small target but against cargo ships the gun damage would be smaller possibly more patchable than 4 or 5 rocket impacts

 

I'd say it depends, but a B-25 could carry a larger volume of smaller bombs. Also, the 75mm in the B-25G and -H was cumbersome and the Americans actually looked to the british 57mm installation due to it's better overall performance and it seems there were even trials in a B-25.

 

I'd also say, providing the right fuzing, you could skip-bomb or depth-charge a Uboat just fine. All a matter of tactics. And the RP3 seemed to have done the job just as fine - plus providing the additional benefit of flexibility against surface-vessels.

 

FWIW: The downward deflection of the 57mm gun was 3.75° according to Graham Simons' book* (p140).

 

@busdriver Graham Simons' book p142: A Barr and Stroud Mk.IIIa reflector sight instead of the standard GM2 fighter-gunsight was used. As the two gun installations weren not in line (Brownings and 57mm), two aiming dots were introduced - the center one for the 57mm and the higher one for the 303s.

___

* Mosquito - The original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft

Edited August 21, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[RedKestrel]

43 minutes ago, Tinku74 said:

Below the waterline? First time I hear about the amphibious Mossie ?

Anything is amphibious if you can get it out of the water.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

FWIW: The downward deflection of the 57mm gun was 3.75° according to Graham Simons' book* (p140).

 

@busdriver Graham Simons' book p142: A Barr and Stroud Mk.IIIa reflector sight instead of the standard GM2 fighter-gunsight was used. As the two gun installations weren not in line (Brownings and 57mm), two aiming dots were introduced - the center one for the 57mm and the higher one for the 303s.

___

* Mosquito - The original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft

Aye laddie, that’s the reference. ? 

[Elem]

6 hours ago, Tinku74 said:

Below the waterline? First time I hear about the amphibious Mossie ?

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3863/what-is-the-coordinate-system-used-in-an-aircraft

[simfan2015]

The mossie looks great !

I (of course) also pre-ordered / EA the Mosquito in DCS.

Can't wait to compare both.

Couldn't even consider not getting this plane in *both* of my beloved sims.

Thanks for showing it in-game already !

 

[kissTheSky]

I’m gonna have to figure out how to fly a twin engine AC with a single throttle axis. Because there’s no way I’m not flying that beaut.  

[CountZero]

9 hours ago, Asgar said:

not sure what the 262, Tiger and Ferdinand do on your list? Tiger and Ferdinand were a key part of the Kursk offensive in the German doctrine and 262s participated in Operation Bodenplatte... so argument invalid?

low numbers used, when you could pic more used option, but this ones were picked because they sell, its hot new thing, and no real problems they had in battles are simed so you had prototype performance without prototype problems they had that impacted their performances in battle.

[Tinku74]

1 hour ago, Elem said:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3863/what-is-the-coordinate-system-used-in-an-aircraft

Thanks for that, did not know that term is also applied to aircraft. I look like an idiot now, but I learned something new, so…can’t complain actually. 

[danielprates]

So the Mosquito is getting close. Now, all we need is a flyable DeHavilland Vampire to re-enact a certain famous ghost story.

[Reinhardt]

On 8/20/2021 at 9:57 AM, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

- Mossie has forward swept trailing edge and unswept leading edge, Hornisse is much more arrow winged.

- As you say, very different canopies: Hornisse is more teardrop shaped from the side and has a very distinctive pair of lobes on either side that the gunner uses to see below the tail. Mossie is relatively conventional and has a solid nose instead of a glazed nose.

- Mossie wing nacelles penetrate the entire wing and emerge from the rear, Hornisse ones end halfway into the wing. The Mossie nacelles are also more or less flush with the upper wing while the Hornisse ones protrude.

- Mossie nose and nacelles have relatively equal length, Hornisse nose is much stubbier than the nacelles and visibly sits behind them.

- If all else fails, the Hornisse is the only one that has a rear gunner, although ideally you will identify it before you know if it has a gunner.

 

Shouldn't be too terribly difficult, if you can tell between a Peshka and a 110 you'll manage this.

The sexy one is the 410, that's how you tell. 

[IckyATLAS]

Gorgeous images. The geometry of this replica and its look seems perfect. Now what about the feel.

 

I wonder how we can get the feel in flight that this plane is made out of wood. Probably the only way is the sound. It is a rational and subjective thinking but I may be wrong.

The other is the sheer speed in level flight. Just for the record the W4050 prototype in 1943 did a record speed  of 439 knots/mph or 707 km/hr a little high at 28'000 feet but still an incredible speed for this fighter. Service ceiling was at 37'000 feet so still some margin.

Operational planes could still do 328 knots at 6'000 feet that is over 600 km/hr and that is remarkable, but will we be able to feel this speed in low level flight say 300/500 feet height in the sim.

 

Now for the sound, metallic frames of the fighters of the time were vibrating and extremely noisy internally in the cockpits, and also reflective of sound which will amplify it.

Instead of metal structure and plates with riveting, here the building of the fuselage and wings was with wood (of which intermediate layer of balsa)  screws (brass for some), glue and dope. 

It is easy to imagine that the sound here should be completely different. You have two engines yes but there are outside the fuselage which would dampen the noise and vibrations going first through wings and then fuselage until they reach the cockpit. On the other hand the two engines are at cockpit level and not very far as the the propeller arcs nearly touch the fuselage nose.

 

I have flown a metallic fighter horribly noisy but also a wooden and fabric plane. The wooden plane was much quieter but could not compare as it was a small engine and a leisure sightseeing plane, so for sure it was much quieter.

So I have no personal possible comparison. And mine were all single engine instead of double with the mosquito.

 

I checked some YouTube videos of cockpit sounds as the mosquito idles, then full power and climbs and flies. But the problem here is that the camera microphone filtering and sound levels make it impossible to have a real feeling. 

It could also be that the proximity of two powerful engines around the cockpit and at windscreen level makes it for a so loud noise that finally the structure sound dampening becomes anectodical.

 

Wait and see what the devs will come up with for the "feel" ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave]

I haven't kept up with announcements regarding skins for the Mosquito. I ... assume ... 464 RAAF will be in there.

[Trooper117]

10 hours ago, Reinhardt said:

The sexy one is the 410, that's how you tell. 

 

Mate, you need your eyes testing... book an appointment with the opticians asp.

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, Reinhardt said:

The sexy one is the 410, that's how you tell. 

 

Well, there's only one that's literally made from hard wood...

[Asgar]

4 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Well, there's only one that's literally made from hard wood...

well yeah, because it's able to see the Me410 in combat. 

[ZiggyZiggyStar]

8 hours ago, Dave said:

I haven't kept up with announcements regarding skins for the Mosquito. I ... assume ... 464 RAAF will be in there.

Not to mention 487 RNZAF. ?

[Jade_Monkey]

17 hours ago, Reinhardt said:

The sexy one is the 410, that's how you tell. 

Does that make me bi-curious?