Ugh, even more discouraging things regarding the fuel/engine issues there, Flanker. But all this info on aircraft engineering is very interesting.

So movable parts/accessories of the aircraft are the ones likely to give out first, if anything goes? It would be interesting to see bombs/drop tanks get torn off. And I wonder how that would affect aircraft with interior bomb bays.. If a bomb is torn, then it would smash open the bomb bay doors.

Watching Mosquito documentary. Seeing the assembly process made me shudder a bit. Wood.. wood all over the place. And then they made such a high performing aircraft out of it. The mosquito was heavier than the Bf 110 series (by far), but looks like it would be more aerodynamic. I'm getting sidetracked here:

1. Any idea at all how the engineering/materials of the Mosquito might set it apart from non-wood airplanes of the era?

2. It was discussed before regarding stores on the wings compared to center mounting. It was said it does not affect the load limit. But, what about having engines mounted out on the wings instead of the fuselage? 110 and Mikksquito (as well as all the bombers - who are weak as far as load resistance go) transfer a very large amount of weight from the fuselage out on the wings. I can't help to think this would assist them in causing much less stress on the wing-fuselage point during turns - both because of less weight in the middle, and maybe somehow the engines straighten the wings out a bit. Perhaps these aircraft snap their wings at the engine mounts rather than near the fuselage in some circumstances?

I was chatting with a pilot that flew mosquitos (in fact he was an Flying Tigers Pilot in the P40's, flew Mosquitos, and B25,s and more..) in WWII. He told me quite a bit about his experiences. He said that he got lots of splinters in the mosquitos. He also said his wife is still picking shrapnel out of him to this day! So, I would think that when a mosquito is being fired on and takes direct hits, the pilots will get splinters if the cockpit area is hit.. I am just saying what he said.. his metal shrapnel was from the bombers..

for the P-40 he also told me that the pilots would remove the sheild behind the (60 lbs.) pilot's seat to gain more climbing speed... and how much in inches of mercury boost it would gain..

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.

Wether the engines are in the wings fuselage or wherever the aircraft is designed and certifed to given structual load limit. Now if you get some bending relief from weight in the wings then the designer takes that into account to allow the structure to to be certified at the specified structural design G limit.

I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

VASI function?
 

I think what U guys are doing is truly awesome I love this game and really thought that 409m was going to be the last patch I just have a small request. Would it be possible to make the"Visual Approach Slope Indicator" or VASI functional on the Japanese Carriers and maybe install one on the American Carriers?? It would sure open up some time Lines for my missions

Thanks I hope it isn’t to late for this request

Tuph

I am paraphrasing different parts of conversations..

he could dial in the boost depending on the weight..
I am pretty sure he was saying he could squeeze out 2 more inches of hg with a 60' lbs. weight reduction.

some numbers he remembers, other numbers he could not remember.. he forgot the convergence numbers for guns.. other numbers he remember clearly, he is in his mid 90's..

He also gave me tips on tuning B25 engines..which was funny because I used the same tips he knew on old engines that used points instead of electronic ignition pickups..
he used mathbook covers (he worked with the mechanics that kept his planes running.. and praised their skills..),, and so did I used matchbook covers also, on old car engines because they just happen to be .017 of an inch which is the point gap on ignition systems that used contact points.. also the B25 leaked oil all the time and threw it all over the plane.. I am amused because I was a gear head in my earlier life..


I speak to him every few weeks, for a few hours each time..

he voluteers a lot of info (very chatty and full of life..).. he was shocked and happy I knew what the 'P-26' Peashooter plane is,, he trained in one ..

actually I know two AVG Flying Tiger Vets..(not personally), we go to the same doctors at the VA hospital (clinics) ....
but they are 40 years older than me... and they will probably outlive me..

One of them also flew bomb missions from Tripoli to the Poliesti oil fields in Romania.

Ah, never mind then. Never heard of anything like that either. Lucky to be able to talk to a WWII veteran on such a regular basis, though, Ramstein!

Tuph, do you have details of VASI's equipping US and or Japanese carriers ?

Are you referring to the Mirror Landing system of modern times on carriers ?

The VASI on land airfields and the Mirror Landing system on carriers are post war developments.

Multi-Throttle
 

I would like to ask if the Multi-throttle/prop pitch/radiator
controls will be just for two engine bombers or will it include
three and four engine bombers?