Glide

Thanks! Yes, it's not easy. Thanks for testing @Hummingbird I'm just here for the view and the salty snacks.

Would you mind posting a track showing your test flight technique?

IMO, this is the next big hill for the FM to climb. The added thrust is nice in the straight and level and helps to compensate for the energy loss in turns, but doesn't solve it. Getting there.

You also have to account for the ground friction modeling in the sim. I would suspect this is a global setting not specific to the Viper. Good on you for practicing this extreme test case.

Don't forget you can add auto-rudder and take-off assist under the Special tab in Settings to help you get started. My favorite prop training exercise is to go river racing from Poti to Kustaisi on the Caucasus map. Try to stay between the river banks and below tree top level while avoiding the bridges and power lines. There are some nice hairpin turns on the river that will allow you to practice your Immelmann turns.

I have changed the way I design my missions. I have one mission before hostilities (no CAP or ground action), and one mission after the fight breaks out for each map. That way I can fly in a populated world for practice, and then I just change up the combat mission until I lose more often than I win. When I get to the point where I kick the AI butt all the time, I change it up.

I watch the sun rise or set almost daily in DCS. There are so many airfields in DCS that are carefully crafted for your enjoyment. I also set the date to the current date so I can watch the seasons pass. I hardly ever pull the trigger these days because I enjoy the flying more than the fighting (until the Viper is complete ). It's all about expectations.

Thanks for that! That's why they get the big bucks!

Agreed. Circuit height, say 1500ft, would be a better setting. I'll run with that. Thanks! Edit: Nope, 10 for the win. It nags you on the way up with higher values.

lol. It's more that it's good to have the radalt working, even if you don't use the warning. The last thing you want is the pilot taking his eyes off the road on approach because of the bells going off, or learning to just ignore the warnings. Too bad you can't put a piece of tape over it.

I think it's just ED evolving the flight model. I expect it will be as good as or better than the Hornet when done.

Is there a way to fly the Hornet without the audible warnings for Radar Altimeter? In Wags' VFR landing training video he passes through 500 ft without the warning, but I can't seem to get rid of it. Thanks.

A little Hornet love. Feeling really good!

Is this a bug? It won't hold trim anymore. Constantly trimming back and forth. It lists like a leaky tugboat.

The F-16 flight model is a work in progress, so any force on the stick bleeds energy with a heavy loadout. As @Xavven mentioned, right now try it with no pylons and low fuel. The envelope is 350-550, so stay inside that zone. If you recall, ED mentioned they were working on their rudder coordination in the flight model to bring out the full fidelity Mig-29. The F-16 likes a small amount of rudder now to bring the nose around nicely. I hope this helps.

No problem. I had Russian voices coming out of my headset today. Cya later folks.

Sorry, I had target fixation on making the DCS Viper better. Nevermind. It's perfect.

Yes, we established that the increase is due to the N1 fan speed increasing. What's incorrect is that the added fuel is not creating acceleration. It's a straight line increase to airspeed, not a curved increase. But what about deceleration? The jets lose fuel flow as the airspeed decreases. The mechanical nature of the thrust levers would not allow the fuel flow to drop past full military thrust as the airspeed drops. Full military thrust on the ground test was just below 10000 pph. Therefore, in a tight turn, my fuel flow should never drop below 10000 pph because my thrust levers are at PLA 85 right before the AB detent. This is why the jets turn to slushy mush in a turning fight. As you slow down, you lose the N1 fan speed and the extra push it gives you, but N2 should stay constant as long as the levers don't move.

I never stop trying to make things better. Just my nature.

The guys who wrote the paper?

They said 85 pla is full non-afterburner power. So, right before the AB detent is my understanding.

You can fly those tests easily in DCS. Start at mach .3, deflect to 85 pla, watch fuel flow until mach .75. I was watching the Grim Reapers turn tests on YT today. I'm going to try some similar tests with the mach increase and without the mach increase.

Figure 9 is interesting. WFE increases as N1 RPM increases while N2 RPM stays relatively constant. N2 is core, so the deflection was constant. And N1 is the fan, so while the core was pushing the mach increase, the fan speeds up and draws more fuel flow? This makes sense, but shouldn't this increase the rate of change in the mach?, ie it should feel like acceleration. More like a curve, less like a straight line. What about deceleration? When you slow down the fan slows down, should the fuel flow drop so quickly so far in a min radius turn, for example? Or would you just lose the N1 fuel flow bonus and stay at full core fuel flow with 85 pla.

Good catch. That 15 deg was the angle to the sensor array. That must have been a very gradual deflection to 85 as the mach increases and the nozzle volumes increase at the same time, don't they? Edit. Nevermind. It's a mystery to me how they got those WFE numbers. Fun report. I was a hotshot data center architect in '96. I love how they say "deck". They probably mean a deck of punch cards. We still had them back then.

Climb to cruise. CTC. Note the change in Mach and exhaust volumes in this set. They started at those altitudes, deflected, and let the jet climb to cruise where it was about 15 deg nose up. That's my understanding of the CTC data in table 5. Table 4 was ground. Table 6 was straight and level. Yes?