ndicki

Oh dear. I was hoping nobody would get that far. Typical FAA and BPF markings in 1945 used a single letter to indicate the carrier, twin letters to indicate a shore base, plus a three digit number to indicate the aircraft. BPF carriers I know are: D5: HMS Hunter N: HMS Implacable P: HMS Victorious Q: HMS Vengeance S: HMS Indefatigable T: HMS Theseus W: HMS Indomitable X: HMS Formidable Y: HMS Glory During Op. TORCH, HMS Formidable's Seafires (885 NAS) carried 06-? where / represents the individual letter. The codes were often carried as 0-6? on the starboard side of the aircraft. 888 NAS Martlets, also on HMS Formidable, carried 07-?. You'll find a few more codes at the bottom of this, but to be honest, you need to find pictorial references since the style of code did change at least twice, and not every carrier seems to have changed over at the same time. http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/SQ_CODES.HTM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet#Fleet_Air_Arm_Squadrons After that, you're on your own...

Does this help? Bear in mind it's a G-5, not an F-2 or F-4, so some details are incorrect. I've marked the important ones on the photos. Incidentally, if you look at the third photo, you can see the very angular, straight shape of the canopy, as mentioned.

Deep means it extends down too far. Actually, I'm not sure that is actually the problem - I wonder if the cross-section of the lower cowling is accurate. It looks too oval, whereas it is wider and flatter on the bottom. Bear in mind that the DB601 is an inverted Vee engine... That said, I'm with 33LIMA on the other points. The tailfin also needs to be smoothed into the upper fuselage forward of the rudder, instead of having a visible 'step' - if yoy do this, the rudder will automatically take the right shape. Let me try and take a few photos...

Some good drawings here, under "Drawings" then "Bf109F" http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/index1024.htm http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/drawings/f2/f2_right.jpg for example!

That's starting to look the part! If I have to find something to criticize, let's say that the kink in the fuselage spine should be a gentle curve, and that it strikes me that the oil cooler is too deep for an F-series. Is the fuselage marginally too deep? Difficult to tell... In any case, just as it stands, it's a far more credible rendition than anything else we have - BRAVO!

Looking more promising there... Kevin, the K-series is effectively indistinguishable (except for details such as hatches, which can be painted on) from the G-10 and G-14AS. There ARE little things, such as barely perceptible bulges on the underside of the cowling forward of the exhaust stacks, and slightly different panel lines as a result, but again, all that takes is paint and shading. I used the CFS3 stock G-10 to cover all marks from G-6AS through to K-4, and it does actually work. I can't remember which I did with Monty's S-99, but there are still a number lying round on my hard drive anyway. I'll have to take a look... Equally, if you want a decent E-series, I'd beg Monty for his B/C-series source. All it needs is the engine cowling, airscrew, spinner and exhausts modifying. The airframe from the cockpit back is unchanged apart from oil coolers under the wings.

Not one of my skins, in any case. The shape of the S-99 is only superficially similar to the F-series, at best; the silhouette might do at a considerable distance, but that's as near as it gets. The S-99/G-14AS has the wide cowling which means that while the breech bulges of the G-5/6/14A are not visible, they're not visible because the cowling has been widened. That makes the nose shape completely incorrect when viewed from above. As mentioned, the tailwheel retracted on the F-series, not on the G or K-series. Further, the oil cooler below the nose is much deeper. Finally, all F-series aircraft had the standard tail and early-pattern canopy hood. None were fitted with the third type of canopy ('Erla-Haube') or tall tail, for the simple reason that they were not compatible. The F-series canopy hood was different from that of the early G-series, and lacked the central vertical strut, for a start. The wings also present some differences, in that F-series aircraft did not have any bulges on the uppersurfaces. I'd suggest asking Monty for the source file and going from there, because this won't go, at least in my humble opinion...

Reasonable assumption, both for 'body' effects and prop variables - and there, I really AM in the dark. The only person I know who appeared to really master the flight dynamics system used in SF2 was GregoryP - and he's left flightsimming as far as I can tell. I was at about 7,000 feet - and the figures I found for the MkXIV stated 390 kts at 7,000 feet. So I'm still about 50 or 60 kts shy of claimed performance. Or at least, if the figures I found were accurate, because of course I can't find them again!

I was looking at the first two figures 15(00) ! Looks as though it's absolutely spot-on then. Still pretty unresponsive though... Does this suggest that in fact, TW's prop dynamics are out, in that even when you feed in the correct data, the wrong performance comes out? It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that in a sim. The main thing is to achieve correct performance and handling, regardless of the data used to get there...

Well, I've tried again and got to 300kts, which is better, but still... I'm on IAS, but with no wind... Anyway, I'll try your TAS mod and see. Not sure how the power ratings work - SLPowerDry=1517499.5 means very little to me! If it's BHP, it's too low.

I've been trying to catch a bomb-laden Spitfire MkIX with an F.22. I failed. It wouldn't go above about 250kts regardless of what I did, and given that it has a two-stage Griffon knocking out 2,000 horsesworth through a 5-blade airscrew, something is very wrong indeed. I've noticed that while using GregoryP's AvHistory FMs for the S-99/Bf109g-10, the power available is far greater than the standard TW versions, and I suspect that it's the same thing here. Flat out, an F.22 should be capable of nearly 400kts... Does anybody else have this? And if so, what can be done about it?

You should worry. The units you have stood down alone surpass the size of the Royal Air Force. Gen Peter Wall has warned our politicians that British Forces cannot continue to reduce their size without losing their ability to do the job. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10119637/Army-chief-we-wont-win-wars-if-we-are-cut-again.html We've always had the approach that a small, better trained and better equipped force will beat a larger, less well trained and equipped one - ask Napoleon - but we cannot rely on that if our forces drop below a minimum level. And this insistence on filling the gaps with Territorials simply will not work - I was one, so I should know. A territorial lorry driver who is a lorry driver in civvy street, fine, but it won't go for combat troops... The problem is that the moment the Nasties get the idea that the Forces of the Free World - ie, the Spams and the British Commonwealth - can no longer oppose them effectively, we may find that we have to. Of course, our gallant leaders don't read history...

I'd like to say a HUGE THANK YOU to all those who reorganised the SF2 downloads section. It is so much easier to find one's way around now, and much more user-friendly.

Slartibartfast is right - in other sims such as CFS2 or 3, all types of Spitfire turn far more gracefully than their rivals, losing less speed while still being able to turn more tightly. In any case, the S-99/Bf109g-14AS was known for wallowing a bit and the S-199 was a pig to fly. Even the Mustang was a mediocre dogfighter compared to the Spitfire - although it won on other considerations such as range and load. That said, I'm not going to stick my neck out and say these FMs are actually accurate...

This one needs a lot more work yet: This one, on the other hand, has just gone in for upload:

View File Spitfire Mk22, Southern Rhodesian Air Force Spitfire F.22, Southern Rhodesian Air Force for SF2 This will work only if you have installed DLC No. 29 AI Aircraft Pack 2, including the Spitfire F.22. Without this pack installed, you will not have the necessary model files. The SRAF received 22 Mark 22 Spitfires from Britain in 1951, and these were used to form two fighter squadrons until 1954 when they began to be replaced with Vampires. The final Spitfire was withdrawn in 1956; most aircraft were sold on to Syria, although SR64 and SR65 remained in Rhodesia. SR64 was subsequently rebuilt and restored to airworthiness but crashed in 1982, killing its pilot. This uses an essentially unmodified data.ini and loadout.ini as supplied in the initial DLC pack.Nationality entries have been changed to read 'Rhodesia' but are otherwise unchanged. Serials include 20 of the known serials for the two batches of Spitfires. There is some disagreement about the actual colour of these aircraft; some say High-Speed Silver, others pale grey-blue. I believe both are probably correct, as the aircraft will have been delivered in RAF Silver and may subsequently have been painted pale blue. Credits: The cockpit is by Kesselbrut and used with gratitude in accordance with the CA fair use agreement. I have no idea where the pilot came from, but thank you anyway! Skin modification, serials, sounds, screens, decals and decal placement by ndicki. Submitter ndicki Submitted 06/11/2013 Category Spitfire

I am unhappy to think that the American security agencies, over which I have ABSOLUTELY NO DEMOCRATIC CONTROL WHATSOEVER may intercept my communications, consult my financial records, scrutinise my political leanings or otherwise big brother my existence or that of my fellow countrymen. He has betrayed they confidence of a security agency which has betrayed the confidence of the citizens who employ it to protect them from threats. I can understand that many Americans will be upset about this, but the further extension of the powers of American security agencies is a subject for concern, in my opinion. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100220952/edward-snowden-has-exposed-both-the-ambition-and-the-incompetence-of-obamas-security-state/ Meanwhile, as a non-American, I say the Americans may theoretically be our allies, but they should snoop on their people the way their people agree democratically to allow them, and we'll snoop on ours our own way under our own legislation. Britain is not a subsidiary power and should not put up with British subjects becoming the targets of America's security agencies. If they want to co-operate with our services, fine, but operating against British people in Britain without the knowledge and agreement of the British authorities, and not subject to British law and in British courts, is inadmissible. Terrorism is a good excuse to extend all kinds of government powers...

View File F-104A, Pakistan Air Force F-104A, Pakistani Air Force for SF2 This will work only if you have installed DLC No. 28 AI Aircraft Pack 1, including the F-104A Starfighter. Without this pack installed, you will not have the necessary model files. Serials include the 12 F-104A aircraft supplied to the PAF, a further 9 loaned by the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and finally two F-104B aircraft of the PAF. Submitter ndicki Submitted 06/05/2013 Category F-104

Well spotted! Put it down to making up the numbers...

I've done a basic PakAF set for the F-104, with the 14 'owned' aircraft plus the 9 on loan from the RJAF to make up the numbers. The serials tally, needless to say. I'll upload the package tomorrow. Getting late here... Plus I've just noticed I need to invert the fin flash and the tail serial. QED.

Change the entry in the cockpit.ini to this: [CockpitSeat001] ModelName=Me-109E3_Pit Position=0.100,-2.5,1.00 It's not perfect, but it's not far off.

Well, I haven't worked my way round everything in great detail yet, but just the F-104s alone would have kept me happy. They accept the SF1 cockpit perfectly. The Avias are beautiful too, decals aside, and the Mirages were quickly fitted with the V BA cockpit. A good days shopping and a big thumbs-up for TK and his crew. Nice one.

The Saint-Cyr bourgeois you criticise are not the ones who decide the defence budget, I'm afraid to say. If they did, rather than the especially useless load of left-wing morons you elected recently, then this sort of thing would happen less frequently. Most of the older Saint-Cyr bourgeois have their own sons in the Forces too. Do not use the death of a good man as an excuse to vent your own ignorant social prejudice and score feeble political points.