DarkFire

This might help you out: [ame] [/ame] It's a video showing an official USAF F-15C aerobatic display.

Good effort! Thought things got a little close at the 59 second mark :) If that were me I'd be having a lengthy chat with my useless wingman after landing...

This. The DCS forum accepts zip files so I use 7Zip to create zip files from the ACMI files & upload them. They can get rather large though...

Minus the pedals this is the setup I'm currently using. I've had the stick and throttle for well over 5 years now and neither has ever missed a beat - great reliability and both are as accurate and precise today as they were the day I took them out of the box. Very highly recommended. The stick is actually designed to mimic the A-10C stick, but is fine for all the other aircraft in DCS (I don't fly the A-10, the Su-27 is currently my baby) whereas the throttle is somewhat more generic but comes with a ton of 4 and 8 way hat switches as well as a miniature cursor control thumb stick. The only down side if you think of it this way is that the stick and throttle don't share a USB plug so together they'll use up 2, but then you could easily plug them in to a USB hub. In reality the CH products HOTAS setup is probably a small step below the Warthog, but I'd say it's definitely the next best thing and as you explained, they're a lot cheaper.

True, but I'd like to think that useful 3rd party dev code gets shared with ED and can be folded back in to the base game.

No problem :) From the perspective of a player with zero programming skills, as some of the in-game aircraft (is it the MiG-21?) have stores that can be damaged or torn off by excessive G, I'd like to think that it would be possible for this to be implemented for all the in-game aircraft. I won't use the "b" word, but it would perhaps... level the playing field... to a degree. Maybe part of the controversy is that as virtual pilots there's little to no disincentive for doing things that would be so dangerous as to be unthinkable for real AF pilots, no matter what aircraft we like to fly. Certainly some of the things we've all discussed are in reality probably extreme edge cases that would only actually happen incredibly rarely. Maybe I should put it like this: certainly the Su-27 and F-15C are based on different design philosophies, with different implemented parameters resulting in different capabilities. Personally I think it would be beneficial to all of us if they could be modelled to the same degree of realism. Hopefully that's something that's planned for future updates :)

Well, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations. The F-15C drop tank is listed as having a capacity of 610 gallons. If these are US gallons this = 2,309 litres. The specified density of JP-8 fuel is listed as being 0.77 Kg/L at 15 degrees C, so the weight of fuel carried in a single drop tank at 15 degrees = 1,778 Kg. I've been unable to find the weight of a dry 610 gal. drop tank, but everything I've read suggests that they're metal as opposed to the kevlar ones used on later models of the F-18, and I've seen some posts elsewhere by ex-USAF techs that suggested the empty weigh to be in the region of 100 Kg. So, the total weight of the tank fully fuelled ~ 1,880 Kg. At 14.5G the force experienced by the pylon will therefore be 27,260 Kg. It appears that each tank is attached to the pylon by two lugs or rings. Assuming equal force distribution, at 14.5G each lug / ring would therefore experience a force of 13,630 Kg which is 30,049 lb. Can't say for sure whether it would remain attached at this force level without knowing the specified properties of the material from which the lugs are made, the engineering design etc. but my first reaction would be nope, not a chance in hell. The actual force experienced by the pylon will be larger due to the weight of the two missiles and also during a barrel roll there will likely be a component of drag force operating vertically on the tank, further adding to the total force on the pylon, in addition to a centrifugal force due to the rotation of the aircraft. So to answer your question, no I don't believe that it's realistic at all for the tanks to remain attached at this G level.

This. ED have implemented the design limits as published in the actual Su-27S flight manual by Sukhoi. The tests that Ironhand and others did showed that the aircraft generally won't suffer structural failure until G=>150% of design limit. I've never known an engineer that didn't build in a safety margin so this failure level is entirely consistent with general design paradigms. As for the insta-fail behaviour, everything I've read and my own personal experimental experience (I used to be a physicist before I did what I do now) is again entirely consistent with repetitive strain-induced failure in high-tensile steel and/or aluminium alloys. We can query whether the FBW system on the Su-27 behaves correctly (I believe it has a few minor unrealistic quirks, but none that effect maximum G) and whether it's programmed for taking weight in to consideration, but the behaviour of the airframe in the game appears to be entirely consistent with published figures and physical reality.

For MP missions that have Combined Arms enabled, it's generally encouraged for players to grab whatever they like using (MBT, APC, SAM, AAA etc etc) or whatever's needed at any given time. That being said, you generally won't find that many CA multiplayer missions as most tend to focus on air-to air, or at most air-to-air with a bit of air to ground thrown in. More generally, DCS is definitely a sim that rewards patience, practice and more practice. I'll echo Scarecrow101 in that it'll benefit you to start off with one aircraft (whichever is your favourite). Read the manual. Read the manual again, then read it again just to make sure. Start off going through basic procedures, e.g. startup & taxi. Take the time to learn things until you can do them with confidence before moving on to the next, more complicated step, rince and repeat. If you imagine an air force training course on a particular aircraft lasting anything from 25-100 hours, then consider that you'll have to put in a similar amount of time to become basically proficient with a DCS aircraft. Never be afraid to ask questions here on the forum: the DCS forum is genuinely the most friendly, knowledgeable and informative game forum I've ever had the pleasure of being a member of. Also consider jumping on to the Virtual Aerobatics multiplayer server. It's a free flight, no weapons & no combat server. Nobody will care how often you crash or how you chose to fly: everyone's there to have fun in their favourite aircraft and to try new things. Generally the flyers on the server will be more than happy to help you out with questions or queries. To answer your original question about rudders: yes, they're very useful. For choppers and WW2 aircraft I'd say they're absolutely essential. For Korea era jets like the MiG-15 and F-86 they're very useful and even for modern high-performance jets like the F-15C and Su-27 they're extremely useful for cross-wind takeoffs and landings. Well worth getting a set if you can afford them. Happy flying :)

From a beginner Eagle pilot's perspective that guide looks clear and comprehensive. Great work! :thumbup:

It seems I may have been wrong about the increased fuel consumption. I just did a quick & dirty test on the VA server, flying from Krasnodar-Pashkovsky to Batumi & back again, cruising at 10,000m for most of the flight. Starting conditions were full fuel and simulated (smoke pods) 3 x R-73. I used my normal climb profile and settled in at 85% RPM at 10,000m HUD-indicated altitude. On return to KP I had 4650Kg of fuel remaining, equalling a total fuel consumption of 4750Kg. Tacview reported an exactly 900Km round trip, with 754Km flown at cruise altitude. This equalled a steady cruise fraction of 84%. Fuel consumption for this flight was therefore 5.2778 Kg/Km which is entirely consistent with the figures I obtained doing the tests for this thread (see the table on page 1): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151731&highlight=su-27+range The fuel consumption for today's flight was lower than the 10,000m altitude test referenced in the linked thread, but that can easily be explained by the fact that for the test in the linked thread I was carrying a full A-A war load of missiles, so higher drag. Conclusions? Obviously this is only 1 data point, but I think my initial impression on fuel consumption was wrong, at least about cruising at altitude. Fuel consumption feels higher than it used to at lower altitudes, however I used my normal climb profile and climb performance felt unaffected. As a side note, my recommendations with regards to the most efficient cruise RPM (it varies with altitude between 83% and 87%, but 85% is always a good choice no matter the altitude) have not changed, which I was afraid they might. I wonder if rather than the aerodynamics having changed, the engine performance profile has been changed?

If we have it then the in-game missiles should be adjusted to fit, no question about that.

Does anyone know if the Su-27 FM was adjusted in the most recent patch (1.5.3.53108 )? It could be that I'm totally wrong and it's just that I've not flown for a week or so due to being busy at work, but things that I feel have changed are: 1. Bleeds a little more energy & airspeed in turns. 2. TAS for a given throttle setting is reduced. As an example, at 3,000m altitude with clean configuration TAS used to be ~1020 Km/h, now it's ~980 Km/h. 3. Significantly more stable & more controllable at low air speed, e.g. at pattern & finals speeds. 4. Engine power at any given RPM appears to have been slightly reduced. 5. Fuel consumption has significantly increased. 6. Rate of change of the trimmer appears to have been reduced. Now vastly easier to trim accurately. WOOOHOOO! AT LAST!!!!! :thumbup: Am I imagining things or has the FM changed?

Very interested in this, looking forwards to hearing more!

Instant purchase for me. Starway: thanks for your awesome work. Show me a link & a donate button & I'll be making a donation as soon as it's available.

This. Given the lack of information relating to that conflict, it's impossible to answer any of these questions: 1. What was the maintenance condition of the launched missiles? 2. What was the maintenance condition of the launching aircraft & systems? 3. How many of the missiles were launched within valid parameters for the given targets? 4. Of this number, how many missiles successfully ignited and guided towards their intended targets? 5. Of this number, how many hit? 6. Of this number, how many kills were achieved? Without knowing any of the answers, isolating actual missile performance / Pk from other factors is impossible. When evaluating strictly missile Pk, the only question is: 7. Of the missiles that were launched within valid parameters, and for which the motors ignited, how many failed to hit the target? Don't know. Therefore I'd say that the Ethiopia / Eritrea conflict provides at best inconclusive data, and at worst is a useless measure of R-27 performance. What would be useful would be the original (and more recent) VKS test data on the missile, and I very much doubt that data will ever be available. Respectfully, I think we're once again going around in circles with this discussion. We know, provably, that the Cd for all missiles in DCS is too large. The reasons for this have long since been expressed by ED, as have the reasons why they're reluctant to change the situation. I'm also prepared to believe, based on available evidence that many of us have demonstrated, that SARH missiles are overly susceptible to decoy by chaff and possibly ground clutter. Again the reasons for this have been expressly stated by ED. I submit that unless we could compare proven and verified missile test data from the USAF (and USN / USMC) with verified test data from the VVS / PVO / VKS, the question of absolute and relative missile performance will always be an unknown.

Thanks for the info :thumbup: 30 Kts crosswind would make for an... exciting... landing!

I'm a bit surprised, I was always under the impression that aircraft tyres aren't designed to experience significant side force in the same way as e.g. high speed car tyres, but but fair enough. I guess tyres are comparatively cheap compared to other components. Does the manual mention anything about maximum safe cross wind speed, maximum off-runway-axis wind angle etc? I tried searching for the -1 but could only find one that's behind a paywall. As an aside, while watching the F-15C landing video you linked I suddenly realised that cross-wind landings are maybe the one situation in which I really miss not having a FPM in the Su-27. You do learn to get some sort of feel for what your total velocity vector actually is, but it's definitely not as good as having one accurately computed & displayed for you on the HuD. Don't really miss it otherwise, but it's incredibly useful in that situation.

What, if anything, does the -1 say about cross-wind landings?

OK, well this is going to be my project for the weekend. :book: I can't speak or write Russian - could someone ask Flanker if he/she wants anything in particular?

Is Flanker looking for track and/or tacview files relating to wing loss? I'd be happy to deliberately use up some airframes for the purposes of science :)

Yep, it's been 20+ years, but from what I remember flying DHC-1 Chipmunks, prop engine + crosswind = good leg workout on takeoff and landing :)

Ah, that'll be it then. Thanks for the clarification :thumbup: hopefully this bug will be squashed at some point...

The trim reset only appears to operate on the pitch channel, not roll or yaw. Anyone know if this is working as intended or a bug? I can compensate for pitch trim & alter it pretty quickly, but small asymmetric roll trim drives me crazy & I can't seem to zero it out. It'd be really, really nice if the trim reset worked on all 3 channels...

Very interesting, thanks for posting this :thumbup: