303_Kermit

As far as I red and watched - F-4 will be a challenge. To be honest, I didn't found any warbird challenging, but I flew only P-47 and Bf-109. Mastering MiG-15 was big challenge, but it's not so difficult to fly if you just want to perform basic flight. F-4 seems to be wild beast.

I wouldn't expect much from it. In instructional movie for pilots (well available in YT) one may find that radar of F-4J, detects target 5m² RCS from 39nm in search mode. (MiG-21 has RCS 3m²). F-4E will be significantly weaker, since it's antenna is much smaller (because of M61A1 Vulcan). From the same reason F-4E has no doppler radar. Lack of space in the nose. Also I wouldn't risk of naming it BVR since interception ranges for AiM-7E of tgt 4m² head on in tests were -F4 at 10kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 6,8nm, missile flight time 15s. miss 3ft -F4 and tgt co-alt, 300ft lunch 6nm., miss 7ft -F4 at 45100ft (launch at 1,8Ma), tgt co-alt, 2xlunch 12,8nm & 11,4nm,. miss 4,7ft and 31,8ft tgt moving perpendicular -F4 at 7,8kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 2nm,. direct hit I suggest practicing BFM, Double Attack, Loose deuce, Fluid Four, Combat spread and so on. Phantom it's a Pilots plane, not a laptop. To score you need to come close.

I would buy IL-28 I'd like to see '50 in DCS alive. My best regards

So... After 6 moths of enjoying P-47 -One can steep dive, but manual prop pitch control is needed. You may cath FW-190D9 long after dive Warning: Manifold raises with the speed during dive, you may destroy your engine. So always manifold down to 42lb. before prolonged dive -I bought 747 throttle quadrant. To use full potential of P-47 one has to move every lever individually -A proper sequence is needed to move levers. 1. From 2550 / 42 -> 2700 / 55 : First add RPM -> add Manifold -> check carb.air temp. 2. From 2700 / 55 -> 2700 / 64: Press in water -> check Manifold -> add Manifold -> check Carb.Air.temp -Throttling back always in reverted order -> Manifold down -> rpm down -One can fly above 2700 / 75 on low altitude. In low air temp (below 16°C) i was able to fly 10 minutes like so. After landing you need to repair or change aircraft. -The higher you fly the bigger ther risk that you exceed carb air temp. It raises with the altitude - so if you checked and set 2700 / 64 at 25.000ft and you see that carb.air.temp. "is barely in its limits" you will surely destroy your engine while further climb to 30.000ft. I wish you fun and success in P-47. It's great plane

Those are not to stabilize , but to help reduce lost of lift due to swept wing design.

Yes, but there is no glare in our planes (except of MiG-21 which is really beautifully made - there is a glare. In other cases - Spitfire, L-39, Bf-109, FW-190, MiG-15, F-86 there's hideous white-ish bitmap and the sunlight goes through pilot body on the other side of canopy. Pilot body is for the light transparent - that's the source of main "light" aberration. Incidence angle always equals reflection angle. Most cockpit "Glare" in DCS has no explanation - Most of "pseudo" glare shall be covered by pilots body. Sun reflection: First three rays goes through - windshield is transparent. Ray 4-6 reflection. So we shall expect some light reflex on our right side if the sun is on ~11 o'clock. In no case one shall expect such behaviour when the sun is on 9 o'clock. There is no glare and no sun reflex in cockpit. Only some aberration. What we have is not realistic and disturbes much more than a real glare and sun reflection in real life. And a glare looks like that: - it appears on canopy when u observe a perimeter into direction of the sun - not the opposite as it is in DCS there's no such thing in DCS. White milk bitmap has nothing in common neither with reflex nor with glare. Other example - Glare created (for example) by wet surface - again. Doesn't explain DCS aberration - white milk on the dark side of canopy. Notice here P-51 Reflections of cockpit instrument. They're visible for pilot in second seat, but not for the pilot in front seat, (the reason is explained in 1-st picture). - As it is the case of DCS. (Reflections of cockpit instruments are static bitmap placed in wrong places - L39, MiG-15, MiG-21)

No... I solved a problem long time ago. The reason was an overboost 2-3 min before. One can ride with 50lb and 2300-2550 without any restrictions. (other than temperatures of cyl. heads, and carb.air) To fly P-47 at it's full potential I bought 747 throttle quadrant. Problem solved.

Scratches like the one in F-15C are completely ok. Dirt - that's the other thing. Cleaning canopy is saint in aviation. MiG-21 used to have nice smell of alcohol every morning. Anyx the glider I flew always smell from some windshield cleaning product. The other case is, that most humans has two eyes. We see stereoscopic. That is why we can focus our sight on object - either outside the windshield, or on the dirt on the windshield. In DCS there's no such option. Human eye can't focus on most important objects. We can't focus our sight on the things outside the canopy because we see a flat picture. Interesting , but even in VR in spite of the stereoscopic sight - problem stays the same - because dirt and reflexes is represented in DCS by hideous , old bitmap. That is why we have to see contacts and dirt just as well - in reality that is not the case. We can focus our eyes outside the canopy. As for a glare - I never experienced it in the way as it's in DCS. It's always on the wrong side of canopy. The "milk" spoiled over canopy appears in reality only if a canopy material is "polluted" those who had some physics lab surely remember. The light dissipates in a heterogeneous medium. That means - if in the glass there's something more than it should be. It may happen if glass (or perspex or any other material) is old - chemical and foto-chemical reactions may change transparency of a windshield. But it's not a normal state. Also - in reality we can always use "sun glasses" - it was always subject in a briefing on our AF. If sun operates intensively, you have to remember about the proper glasses. And magically a glare is also not the problem. Finally.... If sun operates on my 9 o'clock there's never a glare on my 3 in real plane. The reason is simple: my body is not transparent. In DCS kinda... is. With my best regards GUF

True *- Clear Glas mod was perfect. Some reflexes are there, but aren't disturbing

I flew gliders and light planes. They possessed no special glass. I never noted such problem. If something made me blind - It was the sun. Sure there are some reflexes, but nothing so sick as in DCS. I flew Pirat glider - his canopy was 20 year old - I never saw such blinding milk spoiled on canopy. And even if - they're on the sun side. Not the other. I never saw a single video / photo / or personally a plane with such bad visibility as we have in DCS

The performance of Patriot seem to be way below expected then, since the're able ( as it was recently proofed) to intercept Kh-47M2 Kinzhal missile... ?

Hallo Guys Can you please vote?

Wrong. Currently no mod passes integrity check

No I mean a milk spoiled over canopy, and dirty paintings on windshield. I don't mind reflexes. So far It looks like poor pilots tyranny: "I can't see contacts and I don't want that others do." I talk about that: It's probably not important on F-16 - they look at MFD only anyway. As we know, good WWI and WWII pilots used to approach from the sun - to surprise enemy. In DCS it's all upside down. If you came from the sun you're far better visible than if you approach enemy in the way, that HE have the sun behind him. I do that repeatedly... To make enemy blind. There's clearly something wrong here. Spitfire pilots in DCS fly with opened canopy WWI style, all the flights on Enigma PVP in MiG-21 (before windshield update) I made with canopy blown off - to have superior visibility advantage (worked quite well - and it's annoying that it does) I look for simulation not for aberration. It's about that. Green Ugly fellow.

Hello Guys I made a Poll may I know your opinion? With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow

I am interested

Hallo Guys Canopy reflexes and dirt - Poll. You love it you hate it? Am I only one who thinks that it's a kind of sadism to force people to suffer like these?

MiG -21 shall also have such system. It's best described as flight command director and was also one way. Elements of the system are visible in cockpit of MiG-21bis in DCS but nobody has / had any idea how to implement it into DCS. I am concentrating on specific cases and situations since it's always best way to built proper opinion. "Scratch the paint and see what's below. Next paint? Also scratch it". Technology those days was very ineffective. Sometimes totally useless. Example? Bullpup missile. On the paper great idea. Missile can be fired outside the range of enemy AAA. In the reality of North Vietnam, disaster heated by a pilots. Low speed of missile, aircraft has to fly whole the time in straight line while being under fire. In the time when missile finally hits the target , the plane is also quite close to it. Practical value of a combat system and weaponry mus be always verified. Else one create a virtual aberration - not simulation. My best regards GUF

It's worth to mention, that in late '60 Navy had a very little concept what to do with Datalink. The EC-121 were quite rare (US Navy possess just 5 of them?) and very imperfekt. IFF was still an issue. Since 1968 system enabled the operators to distinguish MiG types and a color code system for them entered the air operations vernacular: "Red Bandits" (Mig-17s); "White Bandits" (MiG-19s); "Blue Bandits" (MiG-21s), and "Black bandits" (MiGs low on fuel), but suffered low refresh rate and poor radio comm. Practical detection range of 100 miles (160 km), enough to cover the Hanoi urban area and the main MiG base at Phúc Yên. A major disadvantage of this arrangement, however, was that most MiG contacts were beyond the 70 miles (110 km) range of the Big Eye's APS-45 Height Finder radar, so that they were unable to provide this data to USAF strike forces. Furthermore, technical shortcomings in the EC-121D's systems precluded either controlling a fighter intercept or identifying a specific flight under attack. So Data link was there, but I doubt if they were transmitting something more than data from "Mother" (and that's by far is the best case) With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow

There are no proper words in my vocabulary to express my disgust with these idea. With absolute lack of respect Green Ugly Fellow

I'm flying only as navigator :-). Works perfectly . Find yourself a company to fly and play. Usually there's lot more fun these way.

Same here. There laks of serious documentation of Transmitter (especially) and Receiver. Also I'm still finding a wonders like these: