DaveRindner

Wouldn't Grippen be a better sell. Grippen is a pretty open platform. Its software and flight model are not classified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Further_developments Would it not be a more interesting platform then Viggen? I have no objections to Viggen at all.

Yes the Mig-21 landing speed and runway visibility. #1 killer of youung Indian Air Force pilots. You would think that IAF would assign its best of the best (with honors) to its SU-30 MKI, as that its IAF's premier AA/AG aircraft. Not so. SU-30has IAF's best safety record, becouse its relatively new, low hours, and is easy to fly and land. IAF sends its best pilots to its MIG-21 squadrons. IAF uses SU-30 and MIG-21 as a low/high team. F-15C pilots, on exercises with IAF found that at low alt. MIG-21's size makes it difficult to detect, visually and with radar, provided that the gadget is not AESA. New V3 series AESA radars see everything, regardless of altitude. But still F-15 and F-16 pilts when faced with two prong penetration attempt by SU-30/MIG-21 team tend to prioritise SU-30 allowing MIG-21 to sneak up low. Then MIG-21 use its climb ability to get into firing position. Luftwaffe used its legacy MIG-29 and F-4 as similar low/high team to engage superior Typhoon, F-15C/E, F-16C Blk 50, opponents at Red Flag and in EuroEx exercises. Mind you though, that these tactics require years of practice to refine and for pilots to understand in complex SA environments.

Not sure why, but it is the most enjoyable and funnest to fly. Definitely a must have. Great job, Leathernecks! It is the most difficult to fight in (as it is outmatched) to gen 4 opponents, and least likely to survive. Its a challenge to learn to fly and fight in. But its just so damn fun. Not sure why though. Despite the hoopla, MIG-21PF was not the star of Red side during Vietnam War. Vietnam never got that many, and was reluctant to use them. The star of the Red star in Vietnam was Mig-17 & few 19s. F-8 Crusader utterly dominated air-air combat against Migs. But it held its own against F-4's, though I think that more tactics and payload. F-4 had greater thrust to weight, and greater acceleration, with only AA stores.

Only in that 1986 Michael Bay movie about a man struggling with his homosexuality. Only in that 1986 Michael Bay movie about a man struggling with his homosexuality. Otherwise its an OPFOR F-5E belonging to Marine Aggressor Squadron.

I finally did it once then twice. But my technique and skill are not yet reliable enough. On runway its not hard to land, provided VV and gross weight are within limits. But with dry lakebed, judging height off the ground below 10 meters is difficult and very easy to allow VV to increase precipitously, cracking the gear. Keeping the IAS, AOA, VV, and cockpit sight picture correct, all at the same time is a challenge. The problem, I am finding is that texture map of lakebed is low , even at highest setting, that low to ground, so visually gauging height, as I trained myself, for paved runways, does not work well for lakebed runways. It appears as solid color.

I keep cracking my landing gear on dry lake bed with Mig 21. I sucessfully landed SU-27 and A-10C on dry lakebed runway next to Groom Lake. But no such luck with MIG-21. Gear collapses as if my vertical velocity exceeded limits.

NTTR ATC needs to be clear in runway guidance LEFT or RIGHT. Its a little confusing as which runway is active, and its not always one that lit. "Taxi to parking" ATC message needs to include parking space . I understand there is a basic rule, assuming recovery field is same as departure, that same parking space is used. But when recovering to another airfield, "Taxi to parking" is too vague. Also when will Caucasus map be back into 2.0.0. I realize that many are tired of it, and NTTR is great. But we should have choice of terrains. Be cool if Crimea is back into DCS. Caucasus and Crimea do form a contiguous theater.

No. But the turbine overtemp and fire shooting out of exaust is really a chronic problem. I have 1.5.2 and 2.0.0 side by side instalations. Startup in 1.5.2 is fine, no problems. Throttle at start position, starter sequence no longer then 40 seconds, and no higher then 40%. In 2.0.0 it catches on fire around 20%, and even if shut down, the fire never stops.

I know but it still looks kick-butt. Carrier operations in DCS don't have that oily, wet ,and soggy look, that is shown in Naval Aviation documentaries. Also there is no 'clutter' or business on decks of Kuznetzon and Nimits class CVN in DCS.

I had a office colleague who was engine (American variant of Pegasus), and hydralics Harrier II maintainer , as E-5 SGT in USMC. He told me about limitation of VTOL takeoff and landing. Water vapor injection into fuel mixture or into combustion chamber, cools the mixture, which allows more of it to be packed, hence more power. Inverse is hot gas ingestion during vertical landings, where hot exaust gas is ingested into intakes, which reduces power. Harrier's version of vortex ring (but based on different phenomena). Harrier carries water bottles with limited amount. So it cannot hover for long time. However I am not certain on time limitation. 90 seconds seems like a lot, while 30 seems like low. I am sure there is a manual on web somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II#/media/File:Harrier_Pilot_Prepares_for_Takeoff_MOD_45151641.jpg Please tell me that thats what the GUI of the sim will look like. I'll buy that for a dollar.

Thats fantastic! I am an American so naturally I would have preffered USMC AV-8B. But RAF and RN have retired the HarrierII, while USMC will keep it until F-35B is procured in sufficent numbers. Can't wait for viffing, and vertical landings. I am hoping for 30 second water bottle rule enforcement, and hot gas ingestion to be modeled. I am curious if the radar, compatible with AIM-120C, will be modeled. Any chance on amphibious assault ships or RN VTOL carriers? Now I am interested in what the differences between GR9 and AV-8B. Wikipedia here I come.

Well there is F117 in DCS already. It does not show on radar or EO of SU-27, and MIG-29 unless close in. MIG-21bis Saphire radar does not see it at all, neither do R-60/M lock on to it , except point blank from rear hemisphere.

I am former US Army, so I am fairly certain that F117 (though a USAF system) is mostly classified. However if F117 sim is really desired with a realistic flight model. Just look at how USAF trained F117 crew. Using A-7 (USANG variant). In F117 book, F117 test crew and early operational crews stated that F117 FBW software and law model was so good and stable that F117 flew and felt like A-7. So a good tradeoff for F117 sim is an accurate external model of F-117, plenty of public domain photos, with flight model that of A-7 which is unclassified at this point and well known. The flight instruments , landing gear, and HOTAS, are from F-15C. Except that stick may be from F-18C. I imagine that without stores, and landing fuel amount, the gross weight of F117 is similar to landing gross weight of F-15C. One flight system that is definatly classified is stealth pitot and air data computer. Those are specific to stealth aircraft, and are most certainly classified. Since any realistic flight model and instrument system in a sim has to realistically model pitot and air data computation, there would need to be a compromise. However back to A-7, as long as A-7 systems are accurately modeled, average user should be more then satisfied. Communication, RWR, and target designation, for F117, are likely to be still classified. Becouse those systems were evolved into modern deployed systems on F-22, F-35, B-2, and other platforms. Distributed aperture systems for radar, rwr, and optical , likely trace their development to F117 and before that to those weird things in 1970's around Groom Lake. So all in all. If we get a realistic A-7 sim with F117 external eye candy, that would be 'good enough' IMO.

Well now that we Nevada with Groom Lake, sadly without Papoose Lake S4 concealed runways, U2/TR-1 Dragon Lady would be a challenge. Since at altitude its stall speed and Vne is 10 knots apart. If that is still too classiffied. Need F-16C Block50/52, MIG-29SMT/K with EFM and systems, UH-72 Lakota, SEPECAT Jaguar, AV-8B HarrierII Something from China, JH-7A perhaps. With respect , F117 is still classified too sim for civilian market. Aside from F-15C landing gear, and GBU-12 PavewaysII, everything else is classified, and if available open source, likely to be incorrect. If considering new terrain; Point Mugu NAS (for anti-ship training) North Pacific (Alaska, Aleutian, and Bering Strait) Baltic Sea

The turbine never get off zero. But thanks anyway.

WHen running a manual start up. The engine turbine fails to start or starts but on fire. I guess OVERTEMP. Same start up routine in 1.5.2 of DCS starts fine. There is a change in how Huey turbine reacts in 2.0.0.

I go through same start up procedure as in 1.5. But the turbine never ignites. The starter generator just keeps humming until battery is drained.

Aww qwapp! I sware I recall that it was 1.5 and 2 compatible. Is all good. Nighttime is better in 2.0.

I got Nevada map. Installed fine in 2.0, but 1.5 does not see it.

Viggen would be nice.But! I don't know if there is or not a serious attempt to module Viggen. If it is I welcome it, and would likely purchase it. But if its not, and its just exploratory I think there are better, more important' late Cold War aircraft to module. First generation export version (less classified) of Grippen would be more interesting. Yugoslavian Soko J-22, or SEPECAT Jaguar. LM A-4R Skyhawk would be really COOL. Skyhawk but with avionics of F-16C Block 30 , except radar, is another fantastic potential module. Chinese PLAAF/PLAAN Xian JH-7 would be an interesting departure from status quo. One aircraft we must absolutely have for DCS is LM F-16C Block50

Took me some time also. Here is what works for me. -Fuel below 1K. 700 if bringing back stores. -Align with runway at 10km from threshhold, at 500 meters above ground, at 400kph IAS. Thats a Go-NoGo decision point. If you pass through an imaginary point 10km away from runway, 500 meters AGL , and at 400kph IAS, you are good to go. If not, correct, or go around. -Cockpit picture of runway threshhold just above nose. -Gradually slow aircraft down from 400 to 300kph , while keeping to the above cockpit picture. Carefully watch descent rate on variometer. -Speed at runway threshhold of 300kph. -Gently touch down at 290kph, with 1m/s descent rate. -Pop the drag chute, and apply wheel breaks. -Turn off front gear break (handle down) , release chute,and taxi aircraft to parking. Approach IAS speeds of less then 290kph require higher angle of attack , which blocks runway visibility.

After the latest 1.5.1 update, odd problem crept in. SU-27, Mig-29C, and F-15C work but not work anymore. Weird as it sounds heres whats happening. Lets say a mission is F-15C ,MIG-29S, or SU-27 as player aircraft. Mission loads and starts. Joystick axis do control aircraft, but nothing else works. Keyboard commands do not work, keyboard is nonresponsive. Even ESC key is nonfunctional. Sim has to be ended through Task Manager. Other modules appear to work fine.

Looks like the dispencers are under the wing. I recall in 1.2.5 they were aft of the trailing edge.

Has it been noticed that chaff/flare CMS dispensers have been moved forward to under the wing. SOme time back, they were placed aft of wing trailing edge. I believe that cartridges are ejected upward. Which would make them collide with wing.