Supernova-III

pinned this to the topic, to not loose

@MiG21bisFishbedL thank you for your comprehensive review!

hm, narrowing field of view helps

oh, really. I just didn't know. Will add it later!

well, it's not that simple. Actually, I like planes that do their mission. But flying a slow fixed-wing aircraft particularly in DCS is a bit breaking of immersion for me. I'm suffering from lack of sensation of speed in DCS, mostly because of its graphics. So flying something slow like A-10 makes me feeling that I fly helicopter. Flying a helicopter makes me feeling that I fly a hot air balloon. And so on. Same speed values feel different, say, in MSFS.

added to the post. Actually, should "slow" be considered as a weakness in light attack/cas/coin scenario? It seems rather the opposite. The ability to fly slow is rather a feature.

Hm, I probably should include this one. What about its flight model? You mean incendiary bombs? As I mentioned earlier, C-101 has one type of such kind of bombs. UPD: not really valid, probably didn't know that, thank you. Is this because this is prohibited weapon or something like this?

let's try

it actually has one: if you mean its flying characteristics, it's more performant than A-29

well, I am focused on those 3 I mentioned in the post. We don't have anything else in DCS that can be considered a light aircraft. I would really love to see A-29 some day, but you know...

sure, but shorter answer would be appreciate as well

probably I misunderstand, what light attack version is supposed to do. Is it just for training or real combat employment possible.

Thank you! Added your input to the post

Let's consider some light attack aircraft and see how they fit light attack aircraft role, say, counter-insurgency mission. I want to understand, in which scenario which aircraft can be used in DCS. MB-339 Pros Wide nomenclature of air-to-surface armament Rich nav equipment Cons No radar altimeter, which is bad for low level mission No air-to-air rockets, but who needs it anyway in counter-insurgency scenario? But who knows... No flares Bad support in DCS, almost six month now without updates C-101 Pros Excellent nav equipment Has radar altimeter, which is helpful in low-level missions Good air-to-surface nomenclature, MB-339 is better though (?) Has aim-9 for self-defense, but who needs it in counter-insurgency scenarios? Well... Good support in DCS, regular updates Cons Not so high in G, but not critical, as it's slower No flares L-39ZA Pros (help me here) @MiG21bisFishbedL input Carries R-60 and R-13 air-to-air missiles PK-3 gunpods GSh-23L Cons Worse nav No countermeasures But L-39 has known real combat employment in multiple conflicts OV-10 Bronco Pros COIN-native machine Carries wide variety of weapons, both a2g and a2a Cons ? A-4 Skyhawk Pros Rich operational history in role of light attack aircraft Carrier-capable Radar Countermeasures Wide variety of a2g and a2a weapons Cons ? Comprehensive review of the first 3 in this topic:

After trying out MSFS 2020 and 2024, I must agree. Flight in DCS is dead from this perspective.

@spacefox I bought it when it wasn't on sale, for the full price, intentionally, to support the product, cause I really liked it during the test-drive (trial period). So, let's hope we get an answer. The developer is usually very responsive, but doesn't looks like they interested in developing this one...

I am surprised by the flight model of this module. Comparing to most other DCS modules this one noticeably responds to turbulence, even at altitude. You feel the inertia of the aircraft when turning. So good! The question is, is it still supported? It has some bugs to be fixed, at least known problems. + the manual is unfinished. The startup procedure is not fully described. The module haven't received any updates since DCS 2.9.13.6818 - 19.02.2025 Will it be living?

I agree! Please keep it going, so nice

1. It can be different, anything from 10k fuel all the way down to 6k, I overshoot no matter how heavy it is. But I understand that the weight matters. 2. Kobuleti, almost at the sea level 3. Value by default. 20 degC I guess I believe in my case the wind is the main factor, cause I'm able to fly the pattern with no wind. Thank you all guys for meaningful answers, especially @Cepheus76 and @Bremspropeller

So cool, will be training!

@Bremspropeller oh, that definitely makes sense! I had something like this in my mind, but have no idea, how to get that feel of how much should I pull/roll to correct my position depending on the where it blows and how strong it is.

could you pls elaborate more on that? I'm not sure I understand about headwind and tailwind components.

I'm pulling around 1% of airspeed, this is something that happens on its own... BTW where does this 1% rule comes from? NATOPS doesn't tell anything like this. As well as 350 kts initial speed.

Situation: 8 kts lateral wind, I wanna do overhead break airfield landing. I start with the overhead break itself with 350 kts, pulling 1% of airspeed rolling out on the downwind, at about 1 nm from the runway (I actually tried 1.2nm), establishing on-speed AoA initiating 30 deg left turn, maintaining vertical speed at about 100-200 at 90 deg I'm looking at the runway and realizing that my turn radius is WAY too large to make the runway on course upon rolling out again, 8 kts lateral wind, blowing to the left relative to the downwind How to deal in such conditions?

up