DarkFire

Yeah I should have worded my post better. I was attempting to describe a different way to use the same throttle. I had CTS in my left hand for a while which forced me to essentially use it as I described.

We've all been there :music_whistling:

The CH Products throttle might be suitable for you. The throttle works on a slider and is very easy to pull back simply by draping your hand over it & pulling. It's also super reliable in my experience and is very accurate. Doesn't have as many buttons as some other units but well worth considering, as is the accompanying Fighterstick USB.

Oh of course, I'd forgotten that this is the -33 forum :doh: Yes, the canards on the -33 make it pitch up instead of pitching down when entering direct control mode. The strength of the pitch up moment is still proportional to air speed, and 450 Km/h is still too fast.

My personal opinion, and that's really all it is, is that I would recommend the stand alone open beta. Why the stand alone? That version tends to get patches earlier than the steam edition. New modules also tend to be released for the stand alone version somewhat sooner than the Steam edition. The delay isn't as long as it used to be but there is a delay. Why the open beta? Unlike most games the open beta versions of DCS World is in no way a semi-broken highly experimental mess. DCS Beta is much more of a small scale testbed for new features and early patch work. There have been instances where stuff gets broken but it's always fixed quickly and if I remember correctly the beta track has on occasion been required for early access versions of certain modules. All that being said, if you want maximum tested reliability and are content to wait a little longer for new stuff there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Steam version. I believe (not 100% sure about this as I use the stand alone version) that keys bought on Steam can also be used for the stand-alone modules, but the reverse is NOT true. So, if you're intent on spending money it's best to decide one way or the other and stick to the decision. Neither are bad options.

There would rarely be a single Su-33 on a mission. Once everyone has tanked the entire flight (2, 3, 4, whatever number) wait until the last members' fuel probe has retracted, with nobody flying above the max speed, and when the last member of the fight has retracted their fuel probe the entire flight can accelerate & return to the mission.

That's weird. It's not supposed to do that at all :huh: try resetting the ACS (alt-F9 I think?) before entering direct control mode.

I think that's the case. Adding the extra dead weight from the Su-33 to the maximum landing weight of the basic Su-27 would result in a runway maximum landing weight of 25,020 Kg for the Su-33, so without the manual being explicit as to what it refers to it's logical that the lower manual-based figure of 24,500 Kg refers to carrier trap weight. Anything lower wouldn't allow for an emergency fuel reserve in case of a bolter or wire break. To be fair the higher figure could be the max runway weight. Unfortunately the manual is rather vague. Edited to add: even then these figures are supposed to be the maximum permitted landing weight, not a standard weight. I don't know if this applies to the Su-33 but the 23,500Kg landing weight limit that applies to the real Su-27 comes with a caveat that reads something like "this landing weight is permitted as long as no more than 5% of landings are at this weight" or something similar. No idea what the Russian navy KiAP procedures are for trapping birds that still have ordnance left, but it appears that they're happy to dump nearly all remaining fuel to achieve minimum possible landing weight.

Welcome to DCS! Your box will be able to run DCS just fine. Very nice setup! Don't feel despondent if you feel like you're not making much progress - the DCS-level modules in the game are extremely complex so consider that learning a DCS aircraft will take every bit as long as a real AF or Navy pilot would take to learn a new aircraft to the point of being competent to fly and fight with it. Never be afraid to ask questions here on the forum, no matter how basic they may seem - everyone started off as an absolute beginner with every aircraft and the forum here is by and large one of the best gaming forums on the net. Always plenty of people willing to help out. Most importantly, happy flying! :pilotfly:

450Km/h is very fast for entry to the Kobra. 350-400Km/h is much safer. When you engage direct control mode the aircraft has a tendency to pitch down suddenly, and this tendency becomes much stronger as IAS increases. Secondly, and more importantly, you must only remain at very high AOA while your IAS remains above the minimum controllable flight speed. If you let your speed decay below minimum the control surfaces will have no authority which causes the nose to drop to -90 pitch and which usually results in the negative AOA situation and unrecoverable (at low altitude) inverted departure. Have a look at this training video by Ironhand:

Page 48 of the Su-33 flight manual: Maximum landing weight: 24,500 Kg. Landing weight limit: 26,000 Kg. These maximum weights relate to both airfield and carrier landings. What the second figure means is not described, though I take it to mean the maximum structurally safe landing weight, minus whatever safety margin the engineers at Sukhoi designed in to the airframe. Taking the G stress limit as a guide would indicate that there's actually around a (IIRC) 25-30% safety margin built in to the design, but that's pure conjecture on my part. In any case the normal maximum weight involves no weapons and barely any fuel other than an emergency reserve. Page 7 of the manual specifically describes a fuel dump system being introduced on the Su-33 (Su-27K) so that a pilot can spend a few minutes dumping excess fuel to get below the max landing weight before trapping. Edited to add: I usually come over the arse end of the ship at around 83-87% throttle, depending on weather, weight etc. In what is probably not in any way a coincidence, 85-87% RPM used to be (before ambient temperature effects on engine performance were modelled) cruise RPM setting for both the Su-27S and Su-33, which was corroborated years ago by a source that I by now can't remember (so take with a pinch of salt) stating that 85-87% RPM was the normal cruise setting used by actual VVS & PVO (as then were) Su-27S pilots.

Very much this. The Su-33 is the size of a very large business jet. It's a huge and heavy lump of a thing so particularly at low speeds and relatively high AOA, while throttle response is good acceleration can be sluggish so small throttle movements and any changes will come much slower than in the F/A-18. Use of the auto throttle is strongly recommended until you're quite experienced in carrier landings.

The aircraft in the video looks like an Su-27UB dual seat trainer, so the student pilot is probably practicing approaches, hence the go-around. IIRC don't the knee board approach plates show the circuits for the various airfields?

Textbook landing as usual :thumbup: Thalvid - take a look at this thread, which also contains some useful tips on landing the Su-27: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190270 Short version: the "must" requirements for a successful landing are a 3 degree glide slope and 5 m/s sink rate (until you flare just before touchdown). Therefore your AOA and approach speed will be dictated by your landing weight. The maximum landing weight in the Su-27 is supposed to be 23,300Kg which in practice means no weapons and only about 10% + emergency reserve fuel. If you're heavier than this your approach speed will be higher in order to keep AOA within acceptable limits. Tail strike will occur at 14 degrees AOA but you shouldn't need to be above 8-10 degrees, again depending on landing weight. On finals aim to be at 280-310 Km/h depending on weight. Heavier = faster. Aim to cross the runway threshold at between these speeds. Gently flare and you should touch down at anything between 240 - 280 Km/h which is too fast for a real Su-27 but OK for a DCS landing.

Looks like it has something to do with lights. Are you running any mods? If so try disabling them to see if that helps. It's also worth trying an installation repair.

Thanks all, I'm actually still trying to get past those F-16s. I'm gonna take a look at the link. I have done training, to the point now that I feel it's best to put into practice what has been learned (and not learned). This tactic is helping me learn the tricks to get me through. Sadly the mission is still clobbering me. I am trying to evade via notching and ecm flicker. Well, anything else I can come up with. Thank you for being a great community here, Please let me know if any other hints are out there Fang The F-16C's are tough opponents. Don't be afraid to use your wingmen to keep them occupied. I don't remember if this applies to this mission specifically but one thing that your AI wingmen are very bad at is fuel management. They'll happily hit max AB for pretty much any reason which can leave them dangerously close to bingo. Careful wingman management during the early stages of the mission will hopefully leave them with plenty of juice to mix it up with the Falcons.

It feels almost like the dampener component of the FCS isn't functioning at the moment. Good to hear this will be looked in to :thumbup:

Be very careful of your total take off weight. Loading up your Su-33 with large amounts of A-G ordnance plus a full fuel load can easily increase your all-up weight over the maximum limit, particularly if you use the forward take off positions. It also helps to dial in a little nose-up trim prior to takeoff. As others have said, ensure your intake grids are not deployed and make sure to use the "emergency" thrust option.

That would be good. The R-27ET is my favourite toy for pure pursuit shots as it gives no RWR warning, accelerates incredibly quickly and has a very viable range for that purpose. It's quite smokey but other than that it's great - same seeker as the R-73 but with a significantly increased range.

SP: shows everything that is detectied by AWACS, EWR and your flight (up to 3 wingmen). It also shows the positions of your wingmen. It also shows which targets are detected by which of your wingmen, and which targets are being locked by which of your wingmen. The symbology for the latter features isn't particularly intuitive and I'd suggest reading through this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160144 Co-op / MP: Data link does not show information from or position of any wingmen.

Ah I'd forgotten that, been ages since I played that mission. Good advice: use your wingmen freely, even if they only serve to disrupt and distract the enemy.

This. SA is your greatest weapon. If you have an AWACS up or EWR then your HDD provides better SA than everything except the F/A-18 (currently). Choosing the time and place of your engagement is probably THE most important decision you can make, and will also let you vector in to enemy contacts without having to radiate yourself. In the Su-27 the HDD and SPo-15 are your best friends.

ECM has its uses but they're limited and quite situational. For the vast majority of "missions" featured on MP servers an extra 2 x R-73 will be much more useful. ECM in the vast majority of situations will only serve to highlight your bearing to the entire enemy force. With regards to engaging enemies, try to stay below ~6,000m altitude and try to engage enemy aircraft in WVR fights where your high alpha ability, HMS and R-73 will give you advantages that most enemy aircraft (with the exception of the F/A-18 and forthcoming F-16C) don't have.

Yes, 12,500m is a crazy altitude at which to try ACM in a fully loaded Su-27. The only reasons to be that high are efficient transit cruise or to be at Vmax, since 12,500m is actually the optimum altitude for a max speed run in the Flanker. 6,500m is much more sensible for actual combat.

I've always thought EOS detection was a bit strange. I've managed to pick up large (e.g. a tanker) targets at well beyond the range at which they appear on radar yet it fails to find a tail aspect fighter at 20nm that has both burners on. Not sure what the answer is, but it is vaguely amusing to have your own anti-missile missile system.