bkthunder

I have this issue not only with the F-5, but with the Spitfire and P-51 as well. IMO this is a system-wide problem, not specific to the F-5. And yes, like many things it's been like this for years..:music_whistling:

That's all good guys, but did you realise I specifically said in my post that I pulled that number out of my a**? It was just to explain...

Anyone tried the latest update? I gave it a spin and the fuel flow changes with speed, but only a few Kg/m, then it's capped and no matter what speed it stays there. E.g. 20k feet, full A/B @M1.0 ff is 270 (just an example number), at M1.15 is 274, then it's capped at 274 all the way to whatever speed you can reach.

Just noticed the engine fan 3d models, as well as the animation, is wrong for one of the two engines: they should both spin in the same direction, but now one spins clockwise and the other one spins counter-clockwise.

Not sure what from these updates are included in yestreday's patch, I see a new A/B effect and model updates, but with the follwoing issues: - the turbine doesn't spin - the nozzle is not animated - at full A/B there is a yellow texture that's a bit asymmetrical (looks like it's been skewed to the bottom-right) - it looks like the flames inside the nozzle are spinning rather then emitting. On top of that, all modules have now adopted a small trick, that is to put a little bit of heatblur effect (no pun intended) inside the nozzle, when the A/B si lit. This could make the spinning texture effect less noticeable.

Will you include realistic sounds this time, or use the stock DCS ones? BTW, that TrackIR livery looks great!

Is there any chance we will get, with the new damage modeling, some fixes and updates to the windmilling problem when the engine is off/damaged? Handling emergencies should be one of the most interesting parts of operating the A-10, with all of its alternate systems, but right now DCS does a poor job at it because the HYD pressure never drops as it should, so you never really need to use realistic emergency procedures...

I see what you mean. Nice catch!

I came here to ask for this, but you already did ;) Really hoping to see this implemented!!

Yeah, but you're missing half the fun this way! :D

P.S. the g-meter in an airplane is measuring g-load on the vertical axis. If you're falling down vertically at a constant speed, the gmeter reads 1, because that's the force of gravity on the planet we live on. If it read 0, the plane would be floating, not falling. Stalling at 0g is imposisble by definition, because at 0g the airplane is weightless, and the wings don't carry any load (on top of that, you'd be on a parabolic trajectory with your AoA close to 0, so you couldn't stall anyway). Depending on where the pilot / gmeter is sitting relative to the CG of the aircraft, you could experience some positive/negative or centrifugal g (for example in a flat spin or if the nose is oscillating up and down).

LOL! if you consider a simple stall to be out of envelope.... well. Have a good one fellas, I've contributed enough to this useless thread :thumbup:

Well, it's kinda hard to find data on an aircraft maintaining 2g during a stall... that's because maintaining 2g with a stalled wing is, as far as my common knowledge of aerodynamics goes, impossible. I really don't think anyone should be explaining this to a developer who is suppsoed to prdouce a flight model, anyway: The wing produces lift > the lift makes tha aircraft fly > the wing loading during normal flight is such that the weight of the aircraft is "supported" by the wing > during a stall the wing has (nearly) no lift, therefore the wing loading is lower than the weight of the plane > the airplane falls. Ergo, if the lift is not enough to maintain flight (and therefore to produce a force that is at least equal and opposite of 1g in the vertical axis), how can it be enough to produce 2g? So, can you explain how is this possible?

There is. Instead of generating confusion by telling people they are wrong (when, in fact, you are wrong) why don't you grab the MiG-21 and verify for yourself? He even gave you the link to the bug report which has been ACKNOWLEDGED by the developer.

Had some time to try it out, unfortunately I'm still getting the random crash. Seems less than before though

You're missing the text I quoted in the previous post, which is before what you put here as point 2. Anyway, the picture tells a slightly different procedure, and I am also not hung up on the 40-50 deg nozzle parameter. But I think this is all quite open to interpretation hence why already a few posts ago I said this is one case where input from a real harrier pilot would be invaluable.

FAM 2-62 point 2. "On downwind, ensure the nozzles are no greater than 25° then select AUTO flaps and complete the landing checklist. On downwind select 40-50° nozzles. Set desired power, and as the AOA increases, anticipate the nozzle movement required to stabilize at 8-10 AOA." As they put it, I understand that 1. You set the nozzles at 40-50 2. You set desired power (e.g. 85%) 3. with nozzles at 40-50, my AoA starts to increase, so then I play with nozzles to achieve 10 degrees in level flight. Increasing AoA = decreasing airspeed = with nozzles at 50 I should be slowing down. As it stands in DCS, with nozzles at 50 my speed keeps going up (and AoA goes down). So I either have to set nozzles at something like 70-80, or reduce power (however, according to the procedure above, I shouldn't touch the throttle anymore).

Didn't see those numbers either in the manual I have. However it does say that when first selecting 40-45 deg. nozzles, the AoA should rise, while in the sim it does the opposite because at 45 degrees you are not slowing down at all.. you need much higher angles to start to slow down...

Just reading the NATOPS, the Harrier has a huge number of quirks to be aware of. Especially when using vectored thrust close to the ground. I guess these could be scripted to a certain extent? I'd personally rather have a scripted behavior than nothing at all.

Whilst there *might* be a slim chance, I am pretty sure you haven't applied basic reading & comprehension skills :music_whistling: Thankfully some other members have understood the OP is not an attack on Razbam or the current FM (if anything, it's the opposite). I think with such a unique aircraft, we all have to come to the realization that our beloved sim and our beloved PC don't have the horsepower to properly compute a VTOL flight model to the same level of accuracy we see in other modules / flight regimes. But 1. I don't know what the sim is capable of calculating in terms of fluid dynamics 2. I don't know how realistic of a result can be obtained by "bypassing" the problem somehow. Hence the thread. For discussion, as you do in a, you know, forum.

The last few exchanges I had on this subforum regarding VNSL landings made me think that, apart from straight and level "conventional " flight, it will be hard to see realistic beahvior during slow speed vectored thrust operations. Why? Well, for starters, just skimming through the AV-8B manual you'll see how the interactions between the engine exhaust, the ground and the airframe are responsible for a huge portion of how the aircraft behaves. Most of these effects are given by air cushioning, the jet blast bouncing off the runway and hitting the wings or stabs (e.g. IRL this causes a pitch down moment when approaching close to the ground). So the real question is: does DCS model fluid dynamics required to simulate these effects? I don't think so. How can we then expect Razbam (or anyone) to model a realistic Harrier FM with such limitations? The only way is that they find some ways to "trick" the simulation engine, but it doesn't seem very promising to me... So we'll probably have a realistic FM in forward flight, but during VTOL, I have big doubts we can see it with current sim technology (and computing power on a home PC).

Hard to say it's an FM issue in my opinion. From what I've seen it really depends on your weight. Try it with a full load of fuel and 85% RPM won't be nearly enough to keep you afloat with a steep N angle.

+1. I was flying at constant altitude (45.000 ft) and fuel flow was stuck at 139 from M0.8 up to M2.2+ Shouldn't work like this.

I confirm this. While you get the 2% RPM increase under certain circumstances, I never reached the temp at which the CMBT light turns on. I remember seeign it work a few patches back (I mean harrier patches, so probably last year :music_whistling: )

The TPOD is nowhere near where it should be, it can't even be slaved!