Where and when is the next warbird?

**shotgunshack** · February 1st, 2024, 07:48

What will be the next warbird to hit the streets for MSFS? Have developers stopped building and decided to wait for MSFS 2024? WWII stuff is so charismatic, even the Tomcat from Heatblur I found a little boring after a while but I still loveflying the Spit IX, P-38, Hellcat, Bf109 etc.

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 08:28

Oh, why don't we give 'em a hand. Here's my list in order of Most Wanted :

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
North-American B25 Mitchell
Avro Lancaster
Hawker Hurricane
DeHavilland DH.98 Mosquito
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
Grumman TBM/TBF Avenger
Douglas SBD Dauntless
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
Grumman HU-16 Albatross
Grumman J2F Duck
Bristol Blenheim
Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Messerschmitt Me 262
Messerschmitt Bf 110
Mitsubishi A6M Zero

In that order please, thank you !

***jankees*** · February 1st, 2024, 08:31

Flying Iron works on a B-17, DC on a P-61, Flight Replicas on a Spit mk.V, Paul Domingue was busy with a Grumman Duck, among others

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 08:48

Originally Posted by jankees

Flying Iron works on a B-17, DC on a P-61, Flight Replicas on a Spit mk.V, Paul Domingue was busy with a Grumman Duck, among others

Yes i know, particularly can't wait for the FI B-17. They make wonderful stuff. It's in good hands no doubt !

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 08:42

Originally Posted by shotgunshack

even the Tomcat from Heatblur I found a little boring after a while

Things that are perfect usually are boring. That's their prerogative.

**JohnC** · February 1st, 2024, 09:55

Originally Posted by Javis

Things that are perfect usually are boring. That's their prerogative.

The DCS Heatblur F-14 combined with the 3x campaigns created by Reflected Simulations is probably one of the greatest experiences in all of desktop simulation. Hardly an objective statement, I know. But, flying warbirds of any generation in MSFS is like having a fully built rally car and then only being able to perform doughnuts in a parking lot. Without mission there is no purpose to push an airframe (noting that the best two aforementioned campaigns are training rather than deployment). Without a purpose to push an airframe there is no outcomes driven refinement of a pilot through airframe management and situational awareness. If your brain happens to crave change, an absence of feedback will pivot to desire for novelty.

***Mr.Mugel*** · February 1st, 2024, 11:55

Flying Iron works on an FW-190, AH is working on a Lancaster.

Didn't John Terrell start work on a B-25 for MSFS? Don't know if that is ongoing, though.

Really excited for the FI B-17, too, though.

**CG_1976** · February 1st, 2024, 12:13

Goat, Goat HU-16

***ColoKent*** · February 13th, 2024, 04:49

Originally Posted by CG_1976

Goat, Goat HU-16

After a civilian A2A P-51D....THIS...in spades. Miss the HU-16 in the sim...

Kent

P.S. Now I'm going to have to go re-watch "Flight from Ashiya" a couple of times...!

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 17:24

Originally Posted by JohnC

The DCS Heatblur F-14 combined with the 3x campaigns created by Reflected Simulations is probably one of the greatest experiences in all of desktop simulation. Hardly an objective statement, I know. But, flying warbirds of any generation in MSFS is like having a fully built rally car and then only being able to perform doughnuts in a parking lot. Without mission there is no purpose to push an airframe (noting that the best two aforementioned campaigns are training rather than deployment). Without a purpose to push an airframe there is no outcomes driven refinement of a pilot through airframe management and situational awareness. If your brain happens to crave change, an absence of feedback will pivot to desire for novelty.

Hehe, i'm sure you are right, Sir, and have a valid point but what you are saying is above my pay grade i.e. i don't know what the heck you're talking about.

(English is not my native language..)

I have DCS and i think that particularly the Carrier Operations are absolutely brilliant and a far cry from what we get with MSFS in that respect (IMHO nothing as unrealistic as a Carrier (or a whole task force if you will) floating there still in the water like a dead duck or a flock of dead ducks). Then again MSFS is for flying not sailing, right ? Likewise not for military missions neither. That's all DCS and no doubt superbly done too.

I just like the looks of jetfighters and propfighters and every other kind of flying object, identified or unidentified. And when it comes to jetfighters the IFT/E/Heatblur F-14 (is it IFT or IFE ??...what does 'Foxt' mean anyway ?..) is THE Crème de la Crème, and ,ridiculously enough, i do enjoy tremendously to pretend i'm flying an F-14 in MSFS and be happy with that. I do spend just as much time in the VC as with the External view so i really have no time for missions or anything like that and difficult enough to land that thing on a Carrier without ending up in the Barricade Net.

So, yeah, compared to DCS, we're just fooling around with jetfighters here, enjoying the looks inside and outside and trying to master the flightdynamics which, in more cases then we care for, have us on the top of our skill already to have time and care about any sort of mission anyway. And we DO get to see much and mucho much more than a Parking Lot ! Mucho much more than in DCS too !

May i say DCS has you flying a mission, MSFS has you flying The World ! Be it in an F-14, a Spitfire or Stearman, i love 'em all !

DCS is amazing but i haven't loaded it up for almost a year. That says a lot, doesn't it. Besides we're slightly off topic here with DCS and jetfighters, John, so we'd better leave it at that.

***jankees*** · February 1st, 2024, 08:45

I have the same thing with the A2A Comanche. I just can't be excited about it. Now, if they just brought their P-47 to Mfs...

***Daube*** · February 1st, 2024, 08:46

I would be happy with a DC-3...

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 08:56

Originally Posted by Daube

I would be happy with a DC-3...

To quote Manuel from the Filthy Towels hotel : "QUE !!??"

What's wrong with the AH Dak, Daube ?...

Ohh... it's a C-47, right ? But the DC-3 is not so much WWII while the C-47 *is*...

Isn't it like or couldn't it be like that Barry and friends/AH are working on a DC-3 derived from their C-47 ?

**Marvin Carter** · February 1st, 2024, 09:33

Heinkel 111

***Daube*** · February 1st, 2024, 12:29

Originally Posted by Javis

To quote Manuel from the Filthy Towels hotel : "QUE !!??"

What's wrong with the AH Dak, Daube ?...

The default DC3 (or C47, I don't really care actually, both are lovely) looks really nice both inside and out, and would be pleasant to use.
Unfortunately, the size (scale) of the virtual cockpit is wrong, it's way too small, like less than half the real size. You can't see it on a regular 2D screen, but in VR it becomes obvious.
Even on a 2D screen, if you look closely at the pilot's seat, you will realize that the yoke is actually touching and going through the base of the seat, which means there isn't space for anybody to seat in there, the left leg wouldn't fit at all.

At the end, in VR this plane is simply un-usable. So I wish somebody would either rectify the size or model a new DC-3/C-47 with correct size.
But this will probably never happen, since the issue affects only VR users, which is a minority.

**SeanTK** · February 1st, 2024, 16:29

All,

I would recommend taking a look at the Military and Vintage sections here: https://msfsaddons.com/2023/11/08/ou...ment-for-msfs/

**Javis** · February 1st, 2024, 19:02

Originally Posted by Daube

The default DC3 (or C47, I don't really care actually, both are lovely) looks really nice both inside and out, and would be pleasant to use.
Unfortunately, the size (scale) of the virtual cockpit is wrong, it's way too small, like less than half the real size. You can't see it on a regular 2D screen, but in VR it becomes obvious.
Even on a 2D screen, if you look closely at the pilot's seat, you will realize that the yoke is actually touching and going through the base of the seat, which means there isn't space for anybody to seat in there, the left leg wouldn't fit at all.

At the end, in VR this plane is simply un-usable. So I wish somebody would either rectify the size or model a new DC-3/C-47 with correct size.
But this will probably never happen, since the issue affects only VR users, which is a minority.

Aha !(pun intended), i think i see what you mean. I did one circuit in VR with the AH C-47 and left it at that. I was too occupied with the flying to notice the scale of the VC but quickly realized i don't like VR in 'big' cockpits where gauges become more or less blurry and unreadable. The real DC-3 cockpit is pretty cramped, more or less big pilot guys are literally sitting shoulder to shoulder. But indeed the VC of AH's Dakota is even more cramped than the real one. Physically we wouldn't be able to go sit in the seats without severly hurting our backs. The seats in the real thing can be moved forward and backward there simply isn't room enough to that in AH's VC. Otherwise the VC does look very nice indeed. The thing is though that because of the magnificent PMDG DC-6 i kinda lost interest in the DC-3 more or less. That's of course also because i spend years of creating DC-3's for FS, in fact it was my first go at FS aircraft works by updating John Kelley's 'default' DC-3. You could say the first ' Local Legend', as it was third party created but still came with the FS edition for that time. I think it must've been FS4 or FS5. So it's not like 'Local Legend' is a first in MSFS....

As a result Kenneth Kerr, an FS legend himself, of VIP fame, created the first ever third party panel for FS specifically for....drumroll.......the DC-3 ! ( you need to realize that we were obliged to fly John Kelley's DC-3 with the Cessna 172 panel and sound !.

... )

So that's a bit of FS history for you particularly regarding the DC-3...

Let's hope AH will gives us some more room in their DC-3/C-47 VC sooner or later, Daube !