Author Topic: Pyro, can you fill us in on Mossie fixes/changes? (Read 2048 times)

tedrbr · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:22:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Citabria
whats wrong with the mossie?

Flame dampeners/baffles, Center of Gravity complaints, and much conjecture in regards to the damage model are what I usually see posted.

Did I hear the Mosquito B.Mk XVI with drone options was being added?

Krusty · « **Reply #16 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:24:23 PM »

I don't care about flame dampers. The extra MPH won't help it much.

What will help LEAPS and BOUNDS is the damage model and the flip-stalling center of gravity. Fix those and it doesn't matter if the flame dampers are there or not!!

Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:41:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Citabria
whats wrong with the mossie?

Bugs/issues:
1) Center of gravity is off
2) Overly flamable for a fully protected aircraft
3) Shares the twin engined aircraft's over vulnerability to pilot wounds.

Modeling wishes:

1) Most Mosquito VIs did not have flamedampers and as we don't have night nor exhaust glow in AH it would be preferable to have ejector stacks and the extra 10-15mph which, contrary to Krusty's comments, would help immensely. I speak as somebody who spent a great deal of time in it.

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:46:59 PM »

I mean that, overall the mossie is fairly fast, but no speed demon. +10mph won't change that. It'd be nice (as would a +10 mph boost on the C2, or the P51, or the 109K), but it won't really affect the lethality of the plane itself.

The other bugs are the deal breakers. The top speed is a side dish

Nilsen · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2007, 03:19:46 PM »

Doesnt the 152 have something wrong with it too? I mean apart from the dated looks of the modeling.

Krusty · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2007, 03:26:04 PM »

I'd say very much so, but that's for another thread

Squire · « **Reply #21 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:24:05 PM »

Awesome news, glad to hear the Mossie is being looked at.

The biggest irritant to me is the "glass" crew stations and the weird CoG attributes.

Thx Pyro.

1K3 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:39:30 PM »

Moss and Ta 152 is not alone when it comes to bugs.

N1K2-J is missing its automatic flaps:noid

Over 1000 N1K2s were produced. Nevertheless, had numerous difficulties stemming from very complicated landing gear mechanism and poor visibility for landing and takeoff. Modified version, N1K2-J, first flew 31 Dec 43. Only wing, engine, and armament of its predecessor remained. Most noteworthy mod was lowering of wing to lower fuselage level to shorten and simplify landing gear and improve forward visibility. Much simpler airframe could be built in half the man hours of its predecessor. Was immediately accepted and ordered into production, but only about 415 produced. Potentially one of the best Japanese fighters, able to hold its own against F6F and F4U. Maneuverability, boosted by automatic combat flaps activated by mercury manometer that measured angle of attack, almost unbelievable. Unreliable engine remained a problem. "George" encountered by Allies on all fronts from May 44. At Okinawa, was also used as a Kamikaze.

http://www.aviation-history.com/garber/vg-bldg/kawanishi_N1K2-2_f.html

Gianlupo · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:42:32 PM »

1k3, you've been asking for it times and times again... I doubt you'll have it. It's not a bug, it's a modeling choice. Besides, it wouldn't change much in the plane performance, a good pilot doesn't need autoflaps (believe me, I saw that flying the N1K in Pacific Fighter).

1K3 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:46:15 PM »

That's like saying Bf 109s and Lavochkin La 5/7 don't need slats to be modeled in AH.

Poor excuse there bud.

Quote

Originally posted by Gianlupo
1k3, you've been asking for it times and times again... I doubt you'll have it. It's not a bug, it's a modeling choice. Besides, it wouldn't change much in the plane performance, a good pilot doesn't need autoflaps (believe me, I saw that flying the N1K in Pacific Fighter).

Gianlupo · « **Reply #25 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:48:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
That's like saying Bf 109s and Lavochkin La 5/7 don't need slats to be modeled in AH.

Poor excuse there bud.

Not at all. You have flaps. You just have to hit the button, you lazy man!

Krusty · « **Reply #26 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:52:17 PM »

Ik3, all you know is one part of the design. With a plane whose landing gear failed, and whose engine was unreliable, what makes you think the "auto flaps" worked?

What makes you think it was USED? What makes you think it didn't have a cutoff that the pilots used to manually use flaps?

You can't just parrot that "it had this" -- especially on a plane that had several key components that failed -- without finding out the historical use for it.

109Ks had outer gear doors (that covered the wheels fully) but they were removed almost as a rule. So you see, just because it HAS something doesn't show how that something was USED (if used at all).

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:56:06 PM »

Krusty,

Reports are that it worked and worked very well. Pilots were under orders to destroy the system rather than let the US get it.

It is not nearly as big an issue as FM errors. It is a systems modeling choice.

zorstorer · « **Reply #28 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:59:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
...stuff...

Is the N1K2J a new version of the mossy? I must have missed it in the "Big book O' Mossies"

Krusty · « **Reply #29 on:** August 04, 2007, 12:24:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Krusty,

Reports are that it worked and worked very well. Pilots were under orders to destroy the system rather than let the US get it.

It is not nearly as big an issue as FM errors. It is a systems modeling choice.

Thanks for the info, Karnak! Personally I'm the type that wants absolute control of my 3D plane, so I'd want it "off" even if it was modeled.