Rainmaker

BTW: Sustained turned rates are not a good way to do anything like that. Those turn charts are for sustained performance to project turn rates and capabilities of turn performance for a given airspeed/alt. Same scenario, you are improperly trying to make use of those charts for something for which that was never their intent.

A. Structural limit also deals with service life. Not X time, or X number of times, or X time past X number of times. B. The OWS system on the real jet is way more in depth than the DCS implementation. The real jet has multiple accelerometers in multiple places. ‘Mass items’ vs ‘X’ items and what exactly sees 9G (or whatever G) dictates a lot of things. The charts are extremely simplistic, again, you are using them for something, or attempting to use, for something they were never intended to be used for. There are actual books/criteria made for that purpose...we don’t in any way, use those -1 charts for anything not should they be nor was that the intent of them.

Dont have a dog in the fight here...but I can almost make a guarantee that whatever chart you are trying to use to base the argument off of, is the wrong use of said chart.

correct! seems minor, but you throw those kinds of things off...then thrust is off...then performance is off...it’s just a trickle-down effect.

It’s been a bit, and it’s anyone’s guess where my notes are, but most I believe to be related to the simplified engine modeling. I could be 100% incorrect in my assumption of that, and it could be drag, or other things. The control system, for what it’s worth, does many things very very well. It misses in few areas on things that it should do, but is far more right than it is wrong. The engine modeling, is very simplified though, which is why I think much of the problem lies there. Might be intentional, might not be in terms of thrust, but it’s lacking some of the other features like increased idles, etc that are in the real thing for stall/stag prevention, etc. Being an FC3 aircraft, and so many other projects ongoing at this point, I would say we got what we got most likely.

That is our current fight...and likely will be outside of a peer-peer conflict which is less likely IMO. Like it or not...that’s where it’s at...that’s the reality of the situation.

It hasn’t changed over the last 30+ years. It’s actually gone backwards in a sense. The mig kill, the drones we have engaged, etc...all WVR.

Yep...no official accounts of -9s being fired by -15s...none...nada.

occurred, but also a lot of fights ended WVR. The plan is hopefully to not get that point, but as history has shown, it doesnt end u that way. The last US mig shoot down was also WVR. You can it the other way, but history tends to keep repeating itself, for a myriad of different reasons.

The whole thing was recounted in a few different articles. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/eagle-vs-foxbat-when-usaf-f-15s-dogfighted-with-iraqi-or-russian-mig-25s-during-operation-desert-storm/ Also, anyone that can use their fingers to count could take the number of mig kills the C had and subtract the number of kills with -7s and figure out that 9s were used...there’s just no convincing some people they are wrong though so...

No dude, you are just moving goal posts. First it was WVR/BVR, now it becomes specifically AIM-9s. Next it’ll be gun engagements. it’s obvious you haven’t done any actual research. Here’s your -9 engagement And one more WVR engagement just because No need to move the goal posts again as I’m not going to waste my time responding to you any longer.

When did BVR mean you have to be close enough to identify aircraft type? https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/941015lessonsgulfiv-chap06.pdf https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Airmen-at-War/Haulman-MannedAircraftLossesYugoslavia1994-1999.pdf?ver=2016-08-22-131404-383 Anything else?

They have air slots which align themselves with airflow. Fighters are a bit different than your traditional passenger aircraft for obvious reasons.

that’s an AoA probe. They are cone shaped

FWIW, every engagement I can think of over the last 30 years has ended WVR. It may have started BVR, but by the time the actual shootdown has happened, they have been in the 5-10 mile range. The only grey area fights I can think of that tip toe that line are ones at night. A lot of that is dictated by ROEs, etc so there are variables to that of course which prohibit things starting at max range of the capabilities.

Join their dischord...that came directly from Ron. Good enough for you?

Already been stated, what, at least two times now in this thread because I did it. Yes, confirmed. CFTs aren’t coming off. Not sure why you have read it and keep asking the question.

nvm...not even going down the path

You realize I am actually one of the people that has access to all the performance data, right?!? Not only FM charts but also the books that go into pretty good detail on what the differences are? What do you mean performance is different but characteristics are the same? If you mean that physics stays the same, sure? Lift is lift, drags is drag, etc. AFCS is not the same between the two for starters. Mech is. You let me know when you find C model charts with -229 motor performance...I'll wait. And no, you won’t be able remove them, in any way other than graphically, which is pretty silly IMO. RB has already said as much. The point of any comparison is moot. The C in DCS is also not accurate in all places either FWIW.

The CFTs won’t be coming off...and they alter the FM/performance a lot so there is really no comparison to be made.

No, you have a better performing E model in terms of flying. That doesnt make everything else that different any closer to one another.

The good thing is with precision weapons, there’s a lot more versatility than just using the jet to lob bombs. The bombs themselves are programmed to know how to fly a better profile to maximize range/effects. Same for things like the PWIII series weapons if ED models the different guidance modes available. They can actually pitch themselves into an arc to save you doing things with the jet to get the same results.

I’ll rebut my own statement on this one. Just did some more testing out of curiosity. Stick pos appears to be properly dictating G. Whether it’s cheated or not, the PTC as far as sustaining G also seems to be working. Does some weird stuff at low airspeeds/high alpha to the stabs graphically, but would have to dive deeper to decipher what going on.

Not when I tested it which wasn’t that many moons ago.

The -15 doesn't do anything crazy with springs and stick force. It has centering springs and that is about it. There are actuators that reposition the stick from neutral when trim is applied, but it doesn't manipulate force, etc. Ideally, the pitch/roll ration modifies stick to control surface inputs to do just as you say...I want X number of Gs, I supply X amount of force to the stick. Basically, I move the stick a certain amount, I get a certain amount of G. It does that by moving the surface less for the same amount of stick movement if you are faster, more if you go slower, etc. That should stay fairly constant though MOST of the flight regime. Much easier to max perform the jet without having to guess how much stick force to apply and easing into it as to not blow through the number you want and hearing betty scream at you. In terms of DCS, I don't have the perfect answer on how to blend that into a best fit for the sim world. We don't get that increased stick force as you move your desktop stick further and further back like you would in a real jet. At least not in the increase that you could really fly the jet that way. We'd need bigger springs and stick extensions to really make use of that IMO. With the force feedback sticks that are out there, I have no idea as I have never used one. In our case, in my mind, it would have to be simulated in some way though travel amounts. Right now though, you really have to adjust your inputs based on altitude and speed which the jet's system is really designed to compensate for. Ailerons are not that large, so you are not going to do anything crazy there. Yes to the rest, in simple terms.