Alright guys, time to donate to the computer upgrade fund. We’ll get him from potato to soggy french fries in no time.
@lightunicorn1371
2 жыл бұрын
We need to know his specs first so we know what to get firet
@ahtheh
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think his finance are the problem, his wife bought him his computer so he might have sentimental value to it
@ziggyinc
2 жыл бұрын
Tru dat!
@jeffestrada6857
2 жыл бұрын
Go ahead you can donate since you came up with the bright idea
@martijn9568
2 жыл бұрын
"soggy french fries" In other words bad French fries
@FirstLast_Nba
2 жыл бұрын
Damn, I had no idea how much detail and attention went into the building a FW190D/TA152. year's ahead of it's time.
@Frenchy849
2 жыл бұрын
In my opinion, these statements makes no sense. You would use these words for a model of the aircraft, or its depiction in a flight simulator. What "attention" and "detail" went into the real aircraft came with the functionalities it was designed with, which were not especially more advanced than other Luftwaffe aircraft currently in service at that time. I would say the Fw 190 Dora was very much a product of late WW2 Germany, desperately searching for a way to improve the quickly degrading air-to-air performance of their Antons.
@daszieher
2 жыл бұрын
@@Frenchy849 I think the statement makes very much sense. The 190 series stands out over all others in having a very modern feeling cockpit. Stunning in simplicity and seemingly designed around workflows. A truly pilot-centric design approach. In contrast, cockpits of other aircraft seem to have been designed around the technical necessities of the machine instead. Standing in front of one exhibited at a museum, I couldn't help myself to think how "modern" it was, even by today's standards. I never understood why the concept of a combined gyro instrument like the Wendekompass never caught on outside of the Luftwaffe (and later Soviet Air Force) Oh, and there was nothing desperate about the actual designs, save for perhaps the Natter and the Heinkel 162. The desperation (which was clearly there) was mostly to be seen in when the designs were deemed combat ready.
@ExarchGaming
Жыл бұрын
@@daszieher the FW-190 wasn't any more advanced than it's allied peer aircraft, such as the P-51, or the Spitfire mk IX which came out in 42 and was built specifically to counter the FW-190. the 190 came out in 1941, the P-51D specifically was able to DOMINATE the F-190 at the altitudes that it was designed for (to escort our B-17 flying fortresses.). So, the phrase it was ahead of it's time is really nonsense. People have this weird romantization of the nazi wehrmacht and luftwaffe. Things like how great the Tiger tanks were (they sucked, broke down easily, constant maintanance needed) Both the Soviets and the US had smaller tanks that could punch through the Tiger's front armor at 800m, and were produced en masse such as the T-34-85 and the M4A3 The soviets managed to take out 7 tigers losing only 4 T-34-85s, in one battle.
@daszieher
Жыл бұрын
@@ExarchGaming rubbish. Look at the design with your own eyes. You'll see highly advanced concepts for the time. These are all just aircraft, tools to fight a war. Some had the edge over others in a few areas, some in others. Neither the Mustang nor the 190 were absolutely dominant (I also did not say anything like that). The 190 A was,by the way, not designed to be a versatile high-altitude fighter. There is no need to romanticise or even attach a certain value to the systems under which they originated, except, perhaps that a capitalist economy where products compete more openly for positions will deliver slightly better results. And that being bombed while attempting to build and maintain a production industry is difficult. Regarding the tanks, Tigers had exceptional kill rates at distance, but performed abysmally overall in real battle for a series of reasons. There is enough propaganda from both sides to skew the perception in one direction or the other, don't fall for it
@Eric-kn4yn
Жыл бұрын
Mustang Grìffon powered spitefire same sophistication
@lightunicorn1371
2 жыл бұрын
This entire kind of video is really great and a good way to spice up the content while still being super educational. Do as many of these kinds as you want.
@fredd3.14
2 жыл бұрын
I just wanna say I stumbled upon your channel randomly after recently getting into airplanes. Your voice is incredibly soothing and I could listen to you talk about anything, makes for a great night-time "podcast" if you may. But also your knowledge is awesome. Keep it up and don't stop posting - be it old timey ww footage, dcs, or cars! Thanks.
@CaptMikey-vc4ym
2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic, Greg! Another goodie. Can't wait for the takeoff, flight ops., and landing procedures videos. That Dora is one “pilot's plane”.
@cannonfodder4376
2 жыл бұрын
I can see that pilot opinions on the FW-190 from an ergonomic standpoint were as accurate as ever. Compared to every other warbird its astonishingly modern and friendly. Excellent video as always Greg.
@tangolima6462
2 жыл бұрын
Greg, you explain aircraft systems like a competent A&P. Great systems overview!
@treyhelms5282
2 жыл бұрын
The detail on the simulators is amazing
@oldfrend
2 жыл бұрын
and this looks bad compared to max graphics. i hope greg can scrounge up the funds for a monster gaming rig. DCS is glorious with everything cranked up to 11
@acegh0st
Жыл бұрын
You should see it in VR. The first time I flew one of these planes in DCS using a VR headset, I took off from the field and was just blown away by the 3D environment and the level of detail of everything. Then I did my first wing-over and almost fell out of my chair it felt so real 😂 it’s actually crazy how cramped these cockpits feel when you’re in VR. It really gives you a sense of how little room there was in most of these birds.
@Rockethurst
2 жыл бұрын
I am 71 years old and ever since I was a kid I have loved and admired the Ta 152. Thanks mate for your knowledge. 👍😎🇦🇺
@otosere2857
2 жыл бұрын
This is my favorite channel of all time. Anyone who had this man as their flight instructor was abundantly lucky!
@flyingfalcon8999
2 жыл бұрын
Considering how often you bring it up, I think you just might like this airplane. 😆
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I do like it, but at the moment it's the only DCS WW2 plane I have.
@FirstDagger
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ; Technically you also have the TF-51D Mustang trainer as she is free for everybody :)
@123fockewolf
2 жыл бұрын
100k subs congratulations Greg well deserved!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks.
@rolandhunter
Жыл бұрын
I just want to say: From my experience so far, you are doing a great job. When I have asked a question, under any old video, no matter how stupid, you have answered immediately with the utmost objectivity and calm. The reason I felt this comment was worth writing down for you is: With all my heart, I am grateful to God that He created such people on Earth! Thank you, too, for staying on this path!
@PaddyPatrone
2 жыл бұрын
Again the fw190 Cockpit is a work of art. If I had the money to get a real warbird, it would be a 190.
@JohnBrowningsGhost
2 жыл бұрын
Love to see the FW190, thanks Greg.
@randyallen2771
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve seen several folks cover this information before but none came close to this level of detail …..as we’ve come to expect from Greg. I found it really interesting that it was presented in the manner a real pilot would, using the flow concept. I always wondered if they used written check lists. Learned a lot of new things about my favorite WW II fighter. Thanks Greg!
@snotcycle
2 жыл бұрын
Heya greg, i can't remember where i read it (possibly DCS dora manual) but to my understanding the way to re-enter automatic cowl flap mode is by holding the cowl flap close key binding. For obvious reasons i recommend doing this with the throttle back, since the engine will momentarily spike in temp. However, you should see a return to normal within 5ish seconds. EDIT: BTW another great vid brother!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks, I'll try that.
@Coddykin
2 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of Chieftain's switchology videos, would love to see more of these for the other planes!
@stoneylonesome4062
2 жыл бұрын
“I can’t fly without a clean pair of Jorts and my trusty Newbalances” -Greg, before making a dad-get-up-noise and hoping into the cockpit.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I don't own any Newbalances.
@kaseyfreudenstein4970
2 жыл бұрын
Any chance you'd be willing to do cockpit comparisons between the most and least "pilot friendly" aircraft? Cockpit heat, panel layout, controls, required management (the more you have to baby the plane and instruments the less your fighting the plane in front of you), etc.
@TRUMP_WAS_RIGHT_ABOUT_EVRYTHNG
2 жыл бұрын
thats a great idea! id watch that! i feel like Greg has done something like that but not in DCS. or maybe he mentioned his favorite and least fave layouts in one of his videos. either way thats a good plan!
@rednaughtstudios
2 жыл бұрын
Can't remember where I read it but I think one of the British early WW2 bombers had some horrific spring loaded lid over something important in the control panel. The writer/pilot disliked it intensely.
@okonkwojones
2 жыл бұрын
Honestly, I’d watch the hell out of a cockpit tier list.
@ColonelAkirNakesh
7 ай бұрын
Mosquito is calling 😅
@X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X8X
2 жыл бұрын
What an ingeniously designed cockpit!
@Red-Magic
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Greg! Good video. Regarding the D9's manual cowl flap operation, from my experience it works more as a thermostat control. You'll notice in flight that as you twist and turn the knob open or close, the cowl flaps will briefly snap open/closed, before returning to _almost_ their pre-adjustment position to maintain a slightly hotter or colder temperature. The cowl flaps seem to always be in a sort of "automatic" state, but the only thing that you are _always_ in manual control of is setting the temperature you want the system to automatically regulate too. Normally, and upon spawning in, it's set to 100C.
@SheriffsSimShack
2 жыл бұрын
This guy got it right. You set a target temperature.
@stephensanford5273
2 жыл бұрын
@@SheriffsSimShack Yeah, I've screwed that up more times than I'd like to admit. if I don't watch it carefully, I tend to overheat. Thankfully the engine starts making a funny sound to indicate that you've got about 4 minutes before you lose it.
@andersandrea69
2 жыл бұрын
I really enjoy these in depth videos of nerdy info that other simulator creators don't go into. Would definitely enjoy that take off video with similar info.
@kimjanek646
2 жыл бұрын
Very cool. It never occurred to me that bullets will of course also lose less speed at high altitude, thus having a different flight path 😄 Might actually be quite important. The US 20mm cannons had quite different weight, muzzle velocity and shape for their AP and HEI shells but the ammunition was later replaced by shells that had identical ballistics 🙂 I think the Luftwaffe was also going to replace 20mm Mineshells and Incendiary rounds with once that had more matching ballistic properties, but I’m not sure if they ever did 😌
@wrench4057
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Greg, a few DCS tips just in case you weren't aware. The numpad 2 4 6 and 8 keys can be used to manipulate the view, but these can also be modified. Rctrl+rshift+numpad keys will translate the camera up, down, left, and right, and numpad / and * will translate forward and aft. Numpad 5 will center the view. This could be used to see the flap and trim indicators under the throttle lever, for example. Lalt+C will toggle between mouse cursor mode and camera conteol mode, allowing you to move the camera with the mouse, and pressing middle mouse (scroll wheel depress) while in camera mode will translate the camera left, right, up, and down. IIRC while in camera mode, lshift+middle mouse will translate the camera for/aft with mouse movement, but I'm not 100% certain on that one. Not something one would typically do in flight, but it could come in handy when attempting to film a video with track ir disabled. TrackIR can also have a pause button bound, which would allow you to switch between headtracking and the camera controls mentioned above. For a full list of view controls, check both the "view" and "cockpit view" sections of the controls setup page for each aircraft. I've been flying DCS for long enough I remember having to quit missions back to the main menu to adjust controls, imagine having to do that when flying online! Hopefully some of that is useful to you. As always your videos are very informative, and some of my favorite aviation-themed videos available on youtube.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Wrench, I had no idea those view controls were available.
@theonemacduff
2 жыл бұрын
Great discussion. And a lovely final three minutes!
@britishamerican4321
2 жыл бұрын
I love the color coding: blue for oxygen, yellow for fuel, etc.
@SledgeFox
2 жыл бұрын
This is amazing, so interesting! Thank you very much for taking the time!
@BlueBaron3339
2 жыл бұрын
Some of these player hosted servers do have roles for people who want to perform radar based services but I doubt that red button would affect that. And those services are rare which is one of the problems with DCS - no developer server hosting. Not a knock on DCS really. They maintain focus of what they do best and player demand for WWII online play is low. This ain't the '90s after all 😉 Outstanding video, as always, Greg!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Hmm, I didn't know that.
@BlueBaron3339
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Well, it is unusual and seen only in special events on a few servers such as the 4YA WWII events. Someone made a recruitment video for folks who might want to assume the role but I can't seem to find it. Plus it was pretty...long 😂
@rustyshackleford2841
2 жыл бұрын
This is what IL 2 would never be able to provide. Nice work. Too bad this thing is almost abandoned.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think it's abandoned and I think there is some real home for the DCS WW2 stuff. Time will tell. Of course I have no idea what the developers of DCS are going to do, but they have a great opportunity here in terms of the timing of their product, I just hope they can capitalize on it.
@ferrarikangaroo9271
2 жыл бұрын
I love this channel so much.
@ronjon7942
2 жыл бұрын
Huh, k, pretty interesting. I keep putting my flight sim project on the back burner, even tho I have close to 100% the hardware purchased; maybe following along w my favorite channel will turn my virtual craft into reality.
@saiajin82
2 жыл бұрын
This was another great vid, Greg. Really enjoyed it. Thanks!
@BryanPAllen
2 жыл бұрын
Excellent review. I learned a lot.
@zekeschellberg2927
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video! I found this to be super helpful particularly since I am not a pilot. To be honest, I was a little hesitant to watch a video based on a simulator at first, but figured I would give it a shot since I like all of your other videos. I had read previously about some of Kurt Tank's innovations with the 190 series, but getting a description of using the circuit breakers, for example, put it those innovations into better perspective.
@goingtoscotland
2 жыл бұрын
I saw you in the Wolf Pack server tonight. Didn't yet have any of the aircraft or terrains. Bought the 109 and terrains tonight and got one fight in before it was time to retire. Happy to say I won. Could do with more than a couple MGs in the 109. Wish the DCS 109 had the underwing pods as an option for some missions
@reinbeers5322
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the 109s are lacking in armament. The 13mm HMGs are good but you only get 2 of them and one 20mm.
@slowfuse
2 жыл бұрын
Better training than late war German pilots got. Goddam Greg buy a new computer, thats what Patreon is for
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I'll get a new one later this year, maybe early next year.
@reinbeers5322
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I recommend waiting for prices to stabilize a little, Nvidia for example ordered way too much silicon for their next generation of graphics cards. Can probably get a decent deal that way.
@sildurmank
2 жыл бұрын
The Bf109K4 we have in DCS can't run C3 but B4, anyway not much of a difference the moment you use MW50 as I believe yourself explained in a video regarding German engines. The ground crew is modelled as if you leave the cockpit open you can talk to them without turning radios on, it's like that even on modern jet stuff, cockpit open you can talk to ground crew without radios. Just that. YES, CoG changes are modelled in DCS as it isn't anywhere else in the simulation world AFAIK. It's said in some sources pilots did empty rear fuel tank first because of it, and handling improved a lot. You can actually experience that in DCS and handling is way better with rear tank empty. No need to be any ace to feel or take advantage of that. By the way, alternator won't charge the battery idling below 1500rpm IIRC as per manual, and it's modelled in DCS, you can see lights and things not properly working, you can even dry out battery, until engine is in that regime and over. Great video, thanks for explaining the actual management of this engine using rpm instead of manifold. I've read it in the manual and tell people it's like that but they usually don't pay attention XD.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Really? The DCS 109K4 manual states "The DCS Bf 109 K-4 is modeled with the DB 605 DB engine." and " The DB could use B4 fuel which, with MW 50 Methanol Water injection equipment, generated an emergency power rating of 1,600 PS at 6,000 m (1,160 PS maximum continual at 6,600 m), and take-off power of 1,850 PS at 0 m, with a maximum supercharger boost of 1.8 ATA. The DB could also be run on higher octane C3 fuel, but use of MW 50 was forbidden." So the manual specifically says that the engine they modeled can used C3 fuel. It would be odd if it's not in the sim.
@sildurmank
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Yep, DB engine could run both fuel types with only a minor adjustment from ground crews (I believe you explained that in some 109 video also?), but there are no sources talking at all about 1.98 Ata ever used in K4 despite it could run it. Fuel shortages I guess. The thing is since there are no evidences of it ever being used there is no C3 fuel for K4 in DCS, same as there are no gun pods available since there isn't a single evidence of them being used in K4 despite manual saying it could use them, for instance.
@sildurmank
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I further widened my first answer with a few more details as I watch the video by the way. Sorry it's not done at once.
@sildurmank
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles To your question, AFAIK manual says if you close cowl flaps handle it should go back to automatic by itself, but I'm not really sure it works, at least not in the past which might have changed by now, or not. P.S.: first post is finished now, just a few comments. Thanks for the video again, great stuff.
@flythething193
Жыл бұрын
@@sildurmank Check the comment above from Magic_Zach: "Regarding the D9's manual cowl flap operation, from my experience it works more as a thermostat control. etc" I tried it the last days, and it seems to work. You set a target temperature rather than "closing/opening them", so they always stay in auto WITH this manual option. The procedure just coincides with open/close at first. 100 C seems like the default for the coolant gauge, and then the oil temp stays at near max. Greg´s tip on setting the timer for 10 min works great, when staying on max MP with MW50.
@thatdude3938
2 жыл бұрын
I think DCS simulates CG affecting the flight characteristics. Even 1946 can do it sometimes, DCS most certainly should, especially with 51D being so popular
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
That's great if it's true. I would have to check it in tacview to figure it out for sure.
@Red-Magic
2 жыл бұрын
I can confirm that the CG shift from using fuel from one tank vs the other is there
@martijn9568
2 жыл бұрын
It would have been a dissapointment if it didn't. Microsoft Flight sims had been doing it for more than 20 years
@patrikstrandquist1875
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for another very informative video. Like the DCS stuff, since im a DCS guy my self. Regarding TrackIR, you can press F9 and that will freeze the TrackIR untill you press F9 again.
@jamesbarca7229
2 жыл бұрын
Hey, I finally get to watch it. I clicked on the link yesterday a minute after it posted, and it said the video was private. I refreshed the page, and it said the video was no longer available. I refreshed again and got an error message. Went to Greg's page and there was no trace of it. Sign on today, and here it is. YT does strange things sometimes.
@edwinrudd4398
2 жыл бұрын
Nice flying with you tonight on Normandy! I fly in VR so no chitchat. And yes that was me Bulldog!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Bulldog, I know it was you because I debriefed myself in Tacview. We had some great fights, although at the time I didn't know it was you because it seems every P-51 pilot flies that same paint scheme. We had one fight when we hit each other in the head on pass, both of us limped back to base. Great flying, and thanks.
@stephensanford5273
2 жыл бұрын
Greg, thanks for doing this video. I actually told everyone in my cold start video to just go to your channel if they wanted to know the specifics. I updated it to link directly to this. Okay, that being said, from many hours of playing around in DCS the F14, the warbirds, the Mirage F1 and the MiG-21 require the most time in managing the engine. I've never blown an engine in a Hornet or Viper. I've never fully blown an engine in the Viggen, but I've stalled the compressor many times, as well as flying it to high and having it flame out. (63,000 feet if I recall, about the same as both Mirages and the Tomcat. 70,000 if it's cold outside). The Mig21 is perhaps the most fun in terms of engine management because there is a line, and the line is clear, and if you break it, you break the jet. So, the first 20 hours in the Mig21 you blow the engine all the time. Then after 20 hours, you rarely blow the engine because you've probably figured out where the line is. Anyway, give the MiG 21 a go it's a neat airplane. But I do very much enjoy any and all of your videos, so anything you make I'm going to watch.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Stephen, thanks for your kind words. I may try the 21, I have the Mig 19 and I love it, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere good to fly it in multiplayer. Some places are guns only, but all jets, so you end up agasint F16s, others are cold war but the US jets get all aspect heat seakers. I would like to find a place for Mig 19 vs cold war with rear aspect only.
@stephensanford5273
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Have you tried "Enigma's cold war servers?" There are no F16's wandering around. Best thing in those is going to be a Viggen, MiG21, F5 or Mirage F1, none of which have anything better than an old Fox 1. They have MiG-19 slots and it's all turning fights with the occasional missile shot. It's brutal, really brutal. There are some damn fine gen 2-3 fighter pilots out there in DCS. It'll make you work hard for any kill. It's great fun.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I have, the F5s there have all aspect heat seakers, and the overlord bot is all seeing, which makes it pretty easy for them. What I want is a cold war server than doesn't go past the Vietnam era.
@CaseyBartley
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The Caucus version of the server uses rear aspect heaters only now, and is much more challenging from that perspective.
@justfly7730
2 жыл бұрын
Best ww2 cockpit. Maybe including cold war ones too.
@decnet100
2 жыл бұрын
Agreed. It's amazing to see how logical things can get if someone spends the time and grey matter to simplify and streamline them, instead of just going "where do we put the xyz? Oh there's some space left over there, the pilot will just get used to it."
@432b86ed
2 жыл бұрын
He deserves great production, and top notch equipment.
@fortinero3361
2 жыл бұрын
Outstanding video, as always. Greg, you can "freeze" your TIR without unplug it, I think "F9" is the default key, at least on mine, the leds lights in your camera will turn orange. Regards.
@bassplayersayer
2 жыл бұрын
Oh I forgot, I worked for FFTC with Arne and Dan. Thanks for your video's!!
@ziggyinc
2 жыл бұрын
OUTSTANDING! you should do this for the P47!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I probably will. I'm getting the P-47 next, then all the other WW2 planes in DCS. I'm most excited about the P-47, but they are all great.
@ziggyinc
2 жыл бұрын
Sweet! Your videos are so detailed I almost think I can fly a simulation.
@carlobaroncini949
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Greg; extremely interesting, as usual…
@slumzur
2 жыл бұрын
Great video, I would love to see something like that about P-47
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I'll do that one day.
@bryangrote8781
2 жыл бұрын
Don’t know much about cockpit layouts, but this one seems very simple and much less busy than most. Feel I could almost could figure it out starting w/ nearly no knowledge.👍
@British-Dragon-Simulations
2 жыл бұрын
Great video Greg! Very informative. Thanks! Their is a button in TrackiR that you can bind to pause the head tracking. I would love to see more DCS WWII aircraft videos just like this. Like the BF 109 K-4. Such as the radiator left and right handles etc. I always found it unpredictable to aim my shots whilst firing both the twin 13mm guns and 30mm cannon. I should start just using the two 13mm's for small fast moving fighters and only use the 30mm on bombers and ground targets. Firing both at the same time feels very awkward for me at long to medium range.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
I'm thinking that setting power by ATA would be a useful way to set power as long as all engine limits are respected. It seems analogous to setting thrust for a jet engine by EPR or EGT rather than RPM, which in straight turbojets can express finer gradations of power. When climbing a formation of FW-190s the leader might set an ATA that he knows gives the wingmen enough excess for position keeping even though the RPM of each aircraft may read different. In other words, ATA might be a more precise indication of actual power being produced than RPM, which might vary more for given power with the condition of the engine. If the leader is climbing at a couple hundred RPM less than max continuous, one of his wingmen might be over max continuous to hold the same MP and maintain position. Any takers?
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
@@Ulysses104-0 Yeah, just because the single power lever doesn't give the pilot independent control of MP doesn't mean it is not a useful power reference. Naturally you would have to still watch RPM limits, just like you so when setting EPR in turbojet.
@tokul76
2 жыл бұрын
63 gyro got mg131/38 written below it. Gyro designed for multiple guns and label is for the one fitted on the plane?
@AdmiralQuality
Жыл бұрын
Nice! Nothing like an in depth overview! Keep 'em coming! (I'd particularly like to see you go at the P-47. Its engine management is nicely complex. Also interested in your thoughts on its (unfinished?) boost behavior.
@WanderfalkeAT
2 жыл бұрын
No Tracers may hide your presence a bit longer but you have to kill with the first burst or you have problems anyway. I rather use Anti Bomber Explosive Shell's - They have tracers but even a unprecise hit creates explosions that lead to shock and more damage on the enemy. The Engine Problem is back by the way! The Anton is 10 Times better than the D-9 in almost every Simulator Aspect and Graphical Finess. It is the only German WW-2 plane I really love to fly in DCS these days. Getting the cowl flaps back to auto = don't use a Control Axis for manual mode and close them! If you use a axis the auto setting get's always interrupted if there is the slightest wiggle in the axis. Try the mouse wheel instead or a stick that has a additional mouse wheel like the throttle of the X-52 HOTAS.
@flythething193
Жыл бұрын
Check the comment above from Magic_Zach: "Regarding the D9's manual cowl flap operation, from my experience it works more as a thermostat control. etc" I tried it the last days, and it seems to work. You set a target temperature rather than "closing/opening them", so they always stay in auto WITH this manual option. The procedure just coincides with open/close at first. 100 C seems like the default for the coolant gauge, and then the oil temp stays at near max. Greg´s tip on setting the timer for 10 min works great, when staying on max MP with MW50.
@flythething193
Жыл бұрын
The default "combat mix" must use HE as well, but probably not all of them as the delayed "Minengeschoss". When I choose Anti Bomber as loadout in the 109K4 only the MG´s have tracers, the 30 mm none. The Dora however has tracers on all weapons with that option.
@carlnapp4412
2 жыл бұрын
Hello, allowe me a question concerning the German aircraft engines. If I got it right they were handycapped by low octane fuel. When they are used nowadays with "good" fuel, are they significantly more powerful? That is if the manifold preassure is on a "Merlin level", the ignition timing and valve timing is set for high octane fuel.
@carlnapp4412
2 жыл бұрын
@*Uncle Joe* Cheers!
@nickmitsialis
2 жыл бұрын
RE: German 'checklists'==A while back I read some 'stuff' from the old vets who rebuilt the German Airforce post war; they all said that during the war, they could just check out a plane, jump in and fly; but post war the 'American Style' of 'pre-take off checklist' and all that stuff was incredibly antagonizing to them, and really killed a lot of their spontaneous joy of flying.
@decnet100
2 жыл бұрын
I could imagine that; I'd theorize that the german fighter pilot ethos was influenced a lot by glider planes (which a whole number of pilots and instructors did fly before the war) - the pre-flight there is obviously a whole lot shorter as there are just about no systems to check, and if you've grown up on that amount of "prep-work", any additional step will feel like an unwanted obstacle to your take-off.
@KO-pk7df
2 жыл бұрын
Cool, now all I need is a computer & accessories that can run DCS. But loved the video just for the FW190 info.
@jeffreypurcell4681
2 жыл бұрын
My favourite German fighter !
@itowmyhome797
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you
@k9killer221
2 жыл бұрын
I saw a reference to the effect that the cowl flaps were automatic. Linked to the radiator coolant temperature, they open hydraulically.
@TR4Ajim
2 жыл бұрын
In RL, did the ground crews put all these settings in “ready to fly” positions, so the plane was ready to go? I can’t imagine going through all these settings with a flight of Allied fighter/bombers approaching your airfield, and you have to get up NOW!
@heyho2752
Жыл бұрын
another great video 👍
@gimpytheace
2 жыл бұрын
Love this kind of content! Would enjoy seeing more DCS videos on other planes if you’re considering doing that at some point.
@jimr3633
2 жыл бұрын
Greg - Have you answered the question, "Was a retractable tail wheel really worth the drag savings?" It must have been, given that most high performance WWII planes had retractable or semi-retractable tail wheels. Talk about complicated. Trying to model them at 1/7th scale and smaller is HARD, especially those gear doors. Odd that the Mosquito didn't have tail wheel gear door, no?
@jimgoff1170
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the thorough tour! Do you know if this was the first fighter with a single “power lever”? I feel it may be the beginning of ergonomics when compared to some of the US planes. In the wildcat they had to take their hand off the throttle and then hold the stick with their left hand while cranking the gear up with their right hand!
@mckseal
2 жыл бұрын
The BF109 E7 is the earliest commonly known fighter that had a "computer" for prop-pitch/throttle as far as I can think of. I'm sure that others with more knowledge of the topic could outline it further, including Greg. This video of his outlines the function of the system kzitem.info/news/bejne/sG6i0Wl7Zn6iYJg
@hb9145
2 жыл бұрын
@@mckseal Indeed. A Bf109 pilot fighting against the British during the battle of Britain could not understand why they often seemed to catch the British pilots by surprise. After the war, he was able to fly a Spitfire, and said that there was so much to do inside the plane that was automated in the Bf109.
@dukecraig2402
2 жыл бұрын
I've never been around these kinds of video games and find it just amazing the level of detail in everything, light years beyond Donkey Kong which was the last video game I really played. I did learn a lot about the cockpit of that aircraft and can definitely say I got something out of this, but I really wanted to see you fly around and shoot someone down.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
At the end I did shoot someone down. Also, I have a recent video in which I battle two P-47s online.
@dukecraig2402
2 жыл бұрын
Oh, as soon as you started summarizing and saying you hoped people got something out of the video I thought that was the end. You pulled a Ferris Buhler on me, next time I'll sit through the credits.
@dukecraig2402
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Hey I got a question about the gun sights, I noticed when you were flying around maneuvering the reticle would dissappear as I suspect it would, did they (you in the sim) have to electronically cage the sights in those things to keep from bouncing against the gyro stops and screwing up the calibration and bore sighting? And were the sights mechanically caged during take off and landing? The gun sights on our Vulcan guns which seemed very similar to what was in those planes had a mechanical caging knob for when we'd be bouncing along through the woods, then when we'd get set up to fire you'd mechanically uncage the sight, the gun tubs (turrets) could traverse pretty fast on one of those things especially compared to a tank for the sake of tracking aircraft, before you slung the gun violently in any direction you had to push an electronic caging button on the control handles to keep from bouncing the gyros against their stops in the sight and get the maintenance Sgt mad at you because he had to recalibrate everything.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
It's disappearing because the pilot can only see it within a narrow range of angles. The sight can be caged in which case it becomes a fixed reflector sight. In the case of the Dora, the problem with doing that is it can take 90 seconds to spin up, so when you want the gyro again, it may not be ready. Thus I leave the gyro on until I know I don't want to use it.
@dukecraig2402
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles So there wasn't an electronic caging button to keep from bouncing the sight around and messing things up in a high G or some other violent maneuver? I was watching an interview with a P51 pilot once and he mentioned something about pressing an electronic caging button for the sight which I think was the K14 when performing high G maneuvers or reversing a turn real hard or something like that, but he definitely mentioned a caging button.
@TGMaker
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Greg, could you recommend an at least amount of kit for DCS? Years back I was mad enough and got most of important controls of ka52 bound to my game pad. I really would like to give DC's another go but I would value your opinion on the required kit.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I would get a Thrustmaster T16000, it's not great, but certainly good enough. You will need some head tracker, I use TrackIR simply because I could then get the profiles from others and not have to spend time setting it up. (I used Spudknocker's profile, he is here on youtube and has it in his video descriptions). There are cheaper head trackers. I Fly Central has an inexpensive home made set up. Then get the plane of your choice, ad the map you want. I like the Normandy map for WW2 action. DCS comes with some modern area maps which are free, but for WW2, you really need something else.
@peenice
Жыл бұрын
Has this changed since they updated the cooling for warbirds on DCS? I love warbirds, and the German ones especially the Dora are are my favourites. Have you done a video like this for the 109?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Жыл бұрын
I think it has changed. I now find that I do have to manual operate the cowl flaps in the Dora to keep temps in check.
@britishamerican4321
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting comment about tracers and the utility of foregoing them. I've also heard that the best shots (George Beurling is probably an eg here) didn't use them, no doubt for the practical reason you gave, but also because they simply didn't need them as marksmanship aids.
@ned900
2 жыл бұрын
teach us all the startup poroceedure for a jet of some description. Also, would love to see Part II: Taking off, Part III Flying Around, Part IV: Getting Sot Down - in such detail, would be awesome
@tomhutchins7495
2 жыл бұрын
I don't understand how gyro gunsights work. Surely the target's own movement renders everything it does worthless? I mean if he's turning across your vision there's no way for the gunsight to account for that, right?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
It doesn't care what the target is doing. Think of it this way. It's showing you where your ammo will be at the selected range, say 400 meters. No matter what the target is doing, you ammo will be at that spot 400 meters in front of your plane. If the target is in that same spot, it gets hit.
@fkgmale
2 жыл бұрын
Greg, please make a Dora taking-off tutorial video!
@konstantinatanassov4353
2 жыл бұрын
Gyro Gunsights. The Germans had a few of them produced 'till the end of WW2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ReVi should be more representative. This "Dora" example is a heck of a competivite fighter.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, that's true. However the gyro sight did exist and I elected to use it in the sim. The DCS Dora is very much a best case realistic Dora. In other words of all the variants that actually made it into combat the version in DCS is about the best of those.
@konstantinatanassov4353
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles of course it existed. But I assume it was so uncommon, like a K4 on C3 fuel and MW50, with perfectly maintained aerodynamics. But it (the Gyro-Sight) existed and was far superior in dog-fighting.
@stevenhoman2253
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Greg, the FW-190 has stuck in my mind very much of late. Specifically, since your revelations about Kurt Tank's brilliant design. The fact that this fighter had rods controlling the flight surfaces, as opposed to hydraulic or electric controls. This seems revolutionary to my way of thinking, and I wonder if it was used by any other aircraft of the era, or subsequently?
@jasonkrantz3643
2 жыл бұрын
I’m interested in what Greg has to say, but in the meantime, we can reason by analogy with automotive manual transmissions. Most modern ones are rod-actuated, but cable-actuated transmissions used to be more common, especially on cars with unusual layouts such as mid-engined cars or ones with the transmission behind the rear axle. Rods certainly give a better feel at the control input (gear lever or stick/pedals) because they have less friction and less of a “dead zone” on center. But long rods also need relatively many reinforcing guides so they don’t buckle under compression. While you can save weight by using only one rod for both pushing and pulling, I’d imagine the redundancy of two rods (one in tension, the other in compression) would be worth the extra weight in a WWII fighter. And in a cable-operated control, you need two cables per control because you can’t push a cable very far¹. On the other hand, cables are simpler and much easier to route and maintain than control rods. But hydraulics provide even better feel than rods (among many other advantages). I believe hydraulic flight controls first appeared on the Lockheed Constellation, so they were on the horizon in WWII for combat aircraft. So I suspect that any plane that would benefit from rods would benefit even more from hydraulics, rendering rods a short-lived transitional technology on the way to hydraulics for large and high-performance aircraft. Obviously, many GA planes retain cables because they are simple, low-maintenance and reliable. I’m speculating wildly at this point, but I imagine Greg can answer authoritatively. EDIT: I found this SAE presentation that asserts powered hydraulics appeared in military aircraft in the 1940’s. So I guess I’m doubling down on my theory that control rods were likely overtaken by hydraulics fairly quickly. But again, I bet Greg knows. www.sae.org/works/committeeResources.do?resourceID=482181 ¹ That is, the cables must be paired so one is always pulling on the bell crank no matter which way the control surface is moving. For example, an elevator control uses one cable to raise the elevator and another to lower it-but I bet almost everyone here already knows that.
@smittywjmj
2 жыл бұрын
Pushrods were the standard and are still used on a lot of light civilian aviation. It's essentially the most basic form of mechanical linkage from stick/pedal to the control surface, alongside systems of pulleys and cables. Hydraulically-boosted controls were developed near the end of WWII and used in a limited capacity on some later aircraft before being expanded to full hydraulic systems as you look at things like the F-86 and beyond.
@ricardobeltranmonribot3182
2 жыл бұрын
@@jasonkrantz3643 the F/A 18 Hornet /Super Hornet, use the same electric controls that the FW 190 A/D; they are more reliable, precise, easyier to mantain, lighter, than the Hidraulic ones, the cables wont deform, changing the controls, in the Dora only the landing gear and the flaps where hidraulic, in the A model was said that was a good gun platform, and the controls were precise, they also said that because of the Komando gerat (the mechanical computer that allow the FW 190A to use ONE lever instead of the THREE standart) that in theory was hard to fly in formation, even if that aircraft were showed in flying formations
@kalui96
2 жыл бұрын
Greg, you should put Water-Meth through your Fiat. You could get more air through your turbo!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
My Fiat has Water:Methanol, I have made videos about that.
@npatrcevic
2 жыл бұрын
Considering that the pilot will be moving the throttle on every flight all the time, especially in dogfighting, putting the distance regulator on the lever doesn't seem like such a good idea.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I thought that too, but since I haven't ever felt it in my hand, there may be something about the operation I'm missing here.
@kimjanek646
2 жыл бұрын
That B-17 kill looked so easy. Would it be more difficult, if there were 20 of them or fighter escort? Just wondering about the effectiveness of the MG 151/20 vs MK 108. I think after the introduction of 20mm incendiary rounds the ability to down a bomber was greatly improved so that a single fighter could down a four engined bomber Of course when outnumber by both bombers and escort, staying very fast is the only viable choice, which then makes time on target very short 🤔
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Kim, great question. With fighter escorts that wouldn't have worked because I could not have slowed down to stay just outside of the effective range of the Bomber's 50 cals. I would have had to keep my speed up and only had a moment to fire before breaking off. More bombers would increase the defensive fire, but as long as I go after the rear one the others couldn't really bring much fire to bear. Of course the German's couldn't really use this tactic in the war because by the time they got the gyro sights, US fighters were escorting all the way to the target, and in vastly superior numbers.
@jackd1582
2 жыл бұрын
Would 6 20s in the nose of 262 , given better results for most pilots ( especially lesser experienced pilots at the end of the war )
@kimjanek646
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackd1582 Probably not. The 30s can deal damage hitting anywhere, so for just going in hot, the 30s are probably better. They even wanted to arm the 262 with dual 55mm that would take out bomber in just one hit 🤔
@jackd1582
2 жыл бұрын
@@kimjanek646 but you're not damaging what you're not hitting . 151's follow a straighter path for longer distance .Think I've seen the trajectories side by side on a graph
@kimjanek646
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackd1582 It’s a calculation between the times you hit vs the amount of damage inflicted. In the end the 30s are probably still better in the amount of bombers they are going to take out on average. At least when you can only make one attack run on a formation at high speed.
@pistolpete6321
2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video!
@stephenalexander6721
2 жыл бұрын
Alright, you're back.
@brandonporta2502
2 жыл бұрын
Great content as always Greg! Can we take this as foreshadowing of continuation of you 190 series?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
The 190 series will continue. I think people will really like the next video in that series, covers something that I haven't seen talked about before.
@brandonporta2502
2 жыл бұрын
cant wait! The 190 has been my favorite plane since I was a kid seeing its lines in black and white aircraft identification illustrations in an old Battle of Britain computer game. your deep dives into the 190 are nothing short of phenomenal to me, I (and I believe most on here) can’t thank you enough for your work and content.
@lifesahobby
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Greg
@shaunybonny688
2 жыл бұрын
How’s that head tracker work? You look down with your head and then up with your eyes to keep them on the computer screen?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
It moves the view around with your head. So when I point my face at the edge of the screen I'm looking behind the airplane. It works quite well, not as well as VR apparently, but just fine for me.
@shaunybonny688
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ok that makes sense, as long as your screen isn’t too big I guess that would work pretty well. Thanks for the videos.
@simonwheeler3039
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I seriously urge you to try a VR setup for yourself. It really triples the immersion factor , it drastically improved my gunnery and landings especially! Thanks for the fascinating videos.
@chrisbeauchamp5563
2 жыл бұрын
Greg just wondering why the CIGAR and GUMP checks are considered unprofessional now. Is there something missing for fixed wing operations? Or Is it the generic nature that’s an issue. I’m a helicopter Pilot so not aware / have different checks. I do notice generally a modern need to reinvent the wheel when previous standards or terminology were perfectly adequate. Not always the case and some standards have improved for the better. Getting the gear down for landing isn’t new though. I enjoyed this video thanks for posting
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Cigar and Gump are just not the standard answer, which is to complete the appropriate check list. This is from a question on the commercial pilot written test and the standards for most checkrides. That's not to say that Cigar and Gump don't work, the do work really well.
@chrisbeauchamp5563
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for your reply. I suspected that was the case. I find the same with modern Non Technical Skills, Threat and Error Management etc. CRM and Good Airmanship used to be the appropriate terminology. Perhaps it’s just me but I see it as repackaged with no significant changes in the actual skill sets. Thanks for all your great videos. I always enjoy watching them.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
Curious as to exactly why GUMP is now considered "unprofessional" if it is totally adequate for the airplane being flown. Not everybody needs to fly a simple airplane like it's an airliner and use a laminated checklist, do they?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Gort, I'm right there with you on this. I personally don't have a problem with Cigar and Gump in older airplanes, especially in single pilot operations.
@gort8203
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Glad to hear not everyone is mainlining the Kool Aide.
@bassplayersayer
2 жыл бұрын
Really enjoy your video's!!!!
@ros_beef
2 жыл бұрын
Love this DCS stuff, thanks!
@edwinrudd4398
2 жыл бұрын
Great videos of course!
@HobelDcs
2 жыл бұрын
Don't you still do that for the p51? Is there also a detailed video how the cooling performance is? In the original p51 manual it says you can run on the ground 3000rpm and 67 for 1min in dcs but the motor breaks after 30 seconds. :/
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I haven't flow the P-51 in DCS except a little bit in the trainer version without guns.
@WarblesOnALot
2 жыл бұрын
G'day, Yay Team ! "Short Video..." you said. And an hour and 13 minuets later, the Dora is still dancing. One wonders what the duration of a Long Video might extend towards (?) ! Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Warbles, this one was unscripted, and once I got going it just sort of went on and on. Even so, there were a lot of things I meant to discuss and didn't.
@WarblesOnALot
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles No worries Greg, I was more smiling and winking than anything else... I enjoyed the whole thing, immensely. Keep on keeping on ! Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
@widescreennavel
2 жыл бұрын
So basically, to get the FW to get power again is to unplug the plane, wait 30 seconds, and plug it back in.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, except that you don't have to wait 30 seconds, just push the buttons as fast as you want.
@Warump
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Greg, I would like to suggest using a floatplane (Created by Linus from Linus tech tips and his wife). They takes less commision and have great support. Thank you for your work!
@JamesLaserpimpWalsh
2 жыл бұрын
Spitfire could outurn it. At any altitude. Cheers Greg
@DCS.1-1
7 ай бұрын
Spitfire can out turn anything beside the zero but it’s outdated and borderline useless by 1944 The saving grace was the squadron moved to France = close to the action again
@braeddie
Жыл бұрын
Greg, you need to put some pressure on your patrons for a hardware upgrade.
@Magpie...
Жыл бұрын
Great video as always. Why would that 1 percenter pilot want to empty the fore tank first? I've been flying the a8 and emptying the aft tank first but I don't really have a good reason
@BlackMasterRoshi
2 жыл бұрын
what's with the red pinstripe paint job?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
I like it, that paint job helps prevent friendly fire incidents, which was the point of it in the historical context. It was sort of like a German version of Allied planes with D-Day invasion stripes.
@BlackMasterRoshi
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles ah, friendly fire is a good reason to dispense with camouflage schemes.
@jackray1337
2 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@RealmCenter40
2 жыл бұрын
Would you not also stand a strong chance of fouling the spark plugs by killing the magnetos to shut the engine down rather than cutting fuel?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
Not really, it's no different than shutting off your car that way, which almost all cars do, included leaded fuel race cars.
@RealmCenter40
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the response, Greg! I’be been an auto mechanic since the mid 90’s working on Jaguar cars specifically. The injection and ignition shut down simultaneously on everything all the way back to Lucas EMS. Worn Niksail liners caused us tons of headaches in the late 90’s specifically due to flooding issues so I suppose fouled spark plugs are a sore spot for me lol.
@jiyushugi1085
2 жыл бұрын
The reason for cutting fuel is to ensure that no fuel is left in the combustion chambers. If, later, someone should manually turn the propellor, and if one or both of the mags were left on, or if the ground wire to a mag was broken, the mags would fire the plugs, potentially causing the fuel/air mix in one or more cylinders to ignite, and spin the prop. This is especially important on radial engines, because after sitting overnight the props have to be turned by hand to ensure that any oil that may have run into the lower cylinders is cleared out before hitting the starter.
@RealmCenter40
2 жыл бұрын
@@jiyushugi1085 Radial engines are almost entirely foreign to me. I only know the most basic principles of operation.
@waltergreif4836
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Greg for your detailed tutorial; notice that the engine temps after all that idling on ground are probably not modelled for overheating in DCS. Are any other a/c modelled for such a malfunction at ground level? Thanks for your response in advance.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
2 жыл бұрын
No, the plane will overheat on the ground if you mis-manage it. However, in the temps on the Normandy map, with the cowl flaps in Automatic and at 1000 rpm it can sit there for at least a 1/2 hour, probably more and be just fine.
Пікірлер: 311