303_Kermit

Update: I solved the problem. I disassembled the grip again. It was the TS grip - RS base connection. 0,2mm play = one paper layer. Probably buying RS grip will be good idea. But I like it already as it is now. Thx for advice A true testimony for the precision of sidestick is my improvement ín 1 on 1 situations. Yesterday I was able to win a circle fight in P-47D40 against Bf-109K4 having 50% full auxiliary tank. I was able to keep the plane on the edge through 5 circles, wait until I burn the fuel from auxiliary. It was very clear that any hard pull would end up the fight. Steering by adding force not by the translation of axis makes a wonders. Next plane F-86F ... probably in 2-3 months With my best regards Kermit

I hoped so, unfortunately it's not the case. The clicks come from Realsimulator device. In spite of these I am really happy from the choice I made. I'll report myself after I report reclamation. So far I have good opinion about device and the company.

I have to disappoint you, but everything what @m4ti140 wrote is true. In my university we made a experiment in Wind tunnel with the delta wing (well... I know Re < 300 000) Vortex kept stable up to 90°. What is missing in MiG-21 DCS however, is gyroscopic moment from engine during low speed stall. Every source I found mention about it (during stall and by loosing stability in level flight by V > 1300KIAS Gyroscopic moment playes in MiG-21 significant role). It was confirmed by many sources. If you're interested in Vortex you may find many interesting articles and even movies about these fenomenon. My best regards Kermit

Very good video about T.1154 and R.1155

Hello ED I'd be glad if P-47 becomes Oil Diluter that works and Detrola. With my best regards Kermit

I think it's malfunction

I have also FSSB Ultra II. It came about 3 weeks ago. It's nothing like I expected. Definitely not for everyone, and not for every plane. Properly used however, allows you to perform maneuvers with insane precision. Short: "-" Getting "used to it" take time. It's not intuitional. Software is complex, and instruction is not that clear - it's written for every possible scenario and there's a lot of possible configurations my Ultra "clicks" by going through "0" position. It don't affects precision, or handling, but it's annoying. "+" Better precision Fast adjusting precise position of ailerons and elevator during aerobatic / dogfight. No searching for right AoA. It's "just there" in a split of a second. Very well thought software and many combinations, make Ultra very adjustable. To make it more fair I'm testing it on... P-47D. Works very well. My best regards Kermit

A Long time ago on Blue Flag...

Being old comes somehow together with being unnecessary rude. I'm sorry. I usually do my best to be as polite as I can. @sparrow88 That is tricky to reply. Whatever I write I'll be either cocky and smug, or just big mouth . Funny thing is that most combat sports teach to be humble about it. Would you please excuse me if I try to stay that way? With my best regards & an apology for off topic Kermit

We try hard to look for facts.

I suppose that none of you made an effort to actually check anything more than War Thunder website / forum? I know where these subject comes from, but please check the sources I presented you. VTAS wasn't in any way as perfect and useful as system implemented on MiG-29 or F-16. Most of the VTAS problems described there, are very difficult to simulate. And without them VTAS won't be presenting DCS standards. How do you want to simulate overweight, too far forward C.G. of Helm , and additional (mentioned as serious) head movement restrictions? Also the subject was mentioned here: and here: As I mentioned ... it's not like in War Thunder where every gadget "Works just fine". VTAS II wasn't apparently that genius. In the end, F-14A came without it. I don't think it shall be implemented.

@upyr1 I do believe that you're trying deliberately to misunderstand what I wrote. Most of your writing doesn't correlate to what I wrote. Other case is that you are wrong in many of your statements. For example you wrote "[...] technology that was used on the J in the mig 1970s." well... lets see. Helmet mounted sight came to service together with AiM-9G, and AiM-9G came into service in USN in 1972. The AIM-9G arrived in time to see some combat use over Southeast Asia. Relatively few were launched, achieving 14 kills. Just to see the end of Vietnam War. Truly... operations of 1972 leeding to unfortunate "Frequent Wind" in 1975... Tomcats and F-4J armed with AiM-9G. A debut of a great plane and probably great technology in rather shameful circumstances. VTAS came even later just as you wrote. Lets check that: "In the case of VTAS, the designated operator was the pilot of a high performance aircraft and he was also already encased in a protective helmet (and oxygen mask). Figure 2 shows a later version of a helicopter helmet mounted unit that was used for some of the first flight tests of a Honeywell helmet sight system in the F-4. Although it is more compact than the unit of Figure 1, it was still too large for use in a confined area such as the F-4 cockpit with closed canopy. The protrusion of the "front porch" prevented the pilot from getting close to the canopy to look out or look back. Furthermore, in the high "g" manoeuvring environment of the F4, the added weight and forward shift of C.G. were totally unacceptable." -It was rather new technology and not without problems. It also seems that it was rather teseted, than combat used on F-4J. See more here: http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtassafe.htm "Comparison of Statistics Width - A measurement across the sensors is by far the best index to bulkiness of VTAS helmets for use in high performance aircraft. Extra width not only prevents the pilot from getting close to the canopy but also increases the moment of inertia of the entire assembly which shows up under high "g" loading, high roll rates and/or rapid head movements by the pilot. Weight - The best way to visualise the overriding importance of helmet weight is to remember that an APH-6 helmet/mask combination that weighs over five pounds during straight and level flight weighs over forty pounds in an 8 "g" turn." And... Yes - that is the sort of technology that killed an aerial dogfight as it was known from about 50 years. It's not that I can't live with Late mod. Phantom. It's not like that. It's just that the early period is much more interesting, and I want to see it first. (Source of AiM-9G info here: http://www.military-today.com/missiles/aim_9g_sidewinder.htm#:~:text=It entered service with the US Navy in 1972.) Another mistake is here: "[...] If you are afraid of seeing an F-4 with a glass cockpit than the F would be a good one to avoid." Let's see a F-4F pure glass cockpit: PS There are other errors in your post, but it's too much work to point it out. I believe I proved my point anyway.

I'm Dogfight purist. The end of Dogfight beginned in 1916 ends by III gen. full aspect Fox-2. After that It's just aerial warfare. A clash of technologies. Not man against a man, but machine against machine.

F-4B, F-4D, F-4E, F-4J, F, are highly welcomed. S, N ... well ... After those 5 ok? You have your F-16 & F-18 full glass and high-tech. Phantom II maniacs had waited long enough for their baby.

Oh god... Yes I dream about Phantom II to have Helmet Mounted Sight. It's so childish. "I want lasers, and foton-torpedoes from Startrek Enterprise, and teleport, and... Phazers yes I want Phazers" Keep in mind that some of us want rather basic F-4B Phantom II of Vietnam era, and you may be sure that if I want to have those gadgets I would fly F-16, not F-4. The point of having Phantom is flying against MiG 21. Those are the last pure dogfighters. Everything after that was armed so perfect that 99% of fights ends before head - on cross. It's a fight , but it's not that what most of us search, and wait for. Hell NO! For some of us even '80 are ... just boring. It's just a kill, but not a fight. If you fly always "By the numbers" I mean... And we do it like that. We fly allways with TAC support, always in pairs. We intercept, shoot, go back safe. If my plane is MiG-19 it's interesting I have to fight for my kill. Sometime I loos sometime I win. If my plane is MiG-21 it's even better (especially with R-3S, and RS-2US). You have to work hard for your kill. In F-5 in AJS-37 it's a struggle, sweat and skill you bring get a kill. Not a "helmet mounted sight" F-4 is a mans plane. Don't ruin it by making just the latest version of it. Make a proper opponent for MiG-19, 21 and 23 (if someday Razzbam make it) not for MiG-29. In '80 air combat in planes like F-15C is no more funny. It's nothing like you see in Top Gun. It's way to fast to be funny, and I'm not talking about speed. To schematic: Intercept - crank - Fox1 - chaff - F-pole manouver - chaff - Fox2+flares - disengage+flares - next intercept. Like a robot. Really not much place for own invention. It's not that you shoot someone down - he just failed to avoid your missile. Nothing to be proud of. You wasn't better. Sorry I just feel like that. I want to struggle with missiles that aren't perfect I want to dogfight MiG-21, MiG-19 and hopefully someday MiG-17 and I wan't to feel panic and fury of my (just virtual) enemy. Not just to press a button. That's good for kids. I want to struggle to find a solution for missile lunch, or use a gun. I want to make painful mistakes and learn from them. I want F-4B if not possible that nothing younger than J. NO helmet mounted sights god forbid. I don't want to fight against MiG-29 in it. Neither want you. Watch out what you wish for, cause you may get it. With my best regards Kermit PS I want that: Doghfight, a true Top Gun... In the end Top Gun Miramar was created for F-4B Phantom II pilots. I want to employ and practice that knowledge. Not just "point a target" for my missiles.

God I'd love that in DCS Looks like a fair opponent for F-4

Probably I didn't expressed myself properly. My fault. What I wanted to point out is; that DCS is a way to immortalize a plane. DCS modules are masterpiece of flight simulation. There's surely couple chinese planes worth of immortalizing. I myself know about couple. Not that I have something against CJ6, but it's not quite what DCS was made for. Q-5, H-5, J-7 (I like to see that one), J-4, J-5... there's probably more

To be honest I never expected that there will be a polish plane in DCS. It's something specific for my country. A small country - Czech republic can have their own planes and even have them in DCS... Amazing. As for short life span of TS-8. It was a military training plane, Yak-52 (and his modified chinese copy ) are civilian planes. After their military service they were pushed to civilian aero-clubs, but they were too big and too expensive for them. Single aircrafts were used until early '80. After the end of communism there were about 2-3 planes kept in private hands. It wasn't easy. Army wasn't interested in selling, and private property (these significant) wasn't possible (and allowed) in Poland until the end of 1980. Miraculously some single planes were rescued, but PZL who produced them exist no more. PZL Mielec was owned first by Sikorsky, then by Lockheed Martin. Production lines are destroyed, nobody makes spare parts for last single flying planes. 4 years ago one of the last planes owned by French "Assotiation pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine aeronautique mondial". To gather parts for renovation whole museums and private collections were asked to help. Next renovation would be probably impossible. Today there's nothing left from Polish aircraft industry. Legendary PZL.37 Los (1938y. Laminar wing profile) doesn't exist even in single piece. PZL.23b Karas doesn't exist even in single piece. PZL.7 does not exist PWS.10 does not exist LWS.6 does not exist PZL.P-11c last survived plane was rescued by... Herman Göring. Today to see in Krakow. No flyable planes left. Engine is running. It starts once a year, and it's a great rare event. TS-8 extremely rare TS-11 once popular, today vanishing rapidly. All in all I see no point in CJ-6... Consider please some Warbird - some carrier based Japan plane. It will be far more interesting to behold and admire. Here PZL.P-11c with engine running:

I think these one is much more original and prettier ... Today only few flyable planes are available. Soon it will be over, because there are no spare parts (polish aviation industry didn't survive the end of communism). Soon the only place where it will fly can be your PC. And the plane isn't a clone of Yak-52. Engine fuselage and wings - all original.

1. Based on WT / WoT experience typical tank battle terrains are Alps, Jungle or highly urbanized terrain. 2. How big is going to be actually new Normandy? Because Fulda gap lies between Eisenach and Frankfurt a.M. ... It's not in France.

As usual... I got his books about MiG-23 and Phantom II. Both possess nice "Easter Eggs"

Night operations. MiG-19 wasn't constructed for DCS Dogfight servers, where it's always sunshine and bright sunny day.

Please support me:

As in the title. In the light of upcoming F-4 Phantom I kindly ask for EC-121D Warning Star (College Eye 1967 Mod) as AI I think these asset will be crucial. (As Well as TPQ-10 radar). Those planes served as AWACS (before these name even came to life) from 1954 to 1978 in USAF (and to 1982 in USN).

PF/PFM with very similar weight, possess much bigger thrust. Except of bis those two possess best t/w ratio, out of MiG-21 family. On medium and high altitudes (above 4000m) , where 2-nd stage AFB of Bis isn't working PF,PFM, F-13 has better T/W ratio.