DaveRindner

Real F-104 did not have an operational history, matching its pedegree. It was in service relatively short time in USAF, but much longer in European NATO air forces. Four were shot down in combat, with its direct Soviet analog, the MIG-21. Those shootdowns occured during Pakistan Indian conflict. Indian Air Force MIG-21 scored four shootdown on Pakistani F-104. Original downward firing ejection seat, cost 21 USAF pilots their lives. Eventually normal upward firing seat was installed, but was zero/zero. A min velociy of 104 knots was required to clear the t-tail. Normal for a Kelly Johnson designed aircraft, and I say this with reverence to the man, it required a pilot with aviation piloting skills equivalent to Kelly Johnson's aeronautic design genius. The combat aircraft , he designed, P-38, F-104, SR-71, had high student pilot washout rates, and high crew loss rate, due to pilot error. Flying this man's design was like being in real life Ph.d. level course, where failure meant death. I say this with high reverence for man's genius. The aircraft were not forgiving.

My mistake, then. If it is one. My understanding is SFM->EFM->AFM->PFM . With systems modeling as a separate issue. Right now A-10C, UH-1H, and MIG-21bis are the most enjoyable of DCS aircraft. Precisely becouse advanced flight models are combined with systems modeling. F-15C and Su-27 AFM are great to fly, but becouse of simplified systems modeling feel to easy to fly. Same for SU-25T, and SU-25.

No quite. I would buy an F-104G , if it had AFM or PFM, and advanced systems modeling. F-104 was a tricky and dangerous AC to fly and land. I would look forward to the challenge. After simming with A-10C, UH-1H, MIG-21bis, F-15C, SU-25T, SU-25, and SU-27 AFMs. SFM MIG-29's , SU-33, feed dead, I don't use them anymore. Patiently waiting for all flyable AC to have either AFM or PFM with systems modeling.

AH-1W definatly With additional US Naval & amphibious units. LHA, and LPD, AV-8B (AI). Soft FARP. Towed artillery.

I am not certain. But there is an SOP traffic flow on the base, depending on which runway is active, based of prevaling winds on that day. Such that when you land , you taxi to port(left), or right(starboard) connecting taxiways, to clear the runway. On main taxiways the traffic flows clockwide or counterclockwise, depending on tower decision. So that no aircraft would be taxiing towards each other. Like driving on a one way street, with way direction set by tower. So its possible that, depending on parking space #, or shelter #, the aircraft has to take the scenic route around the airbase or airport, including, crossing an active runway near threshholds. Logically it works. I fly between LA and Chicago, and appears that way, form the passenger window. In O'Hare, aircraft on starboard side of runway are going one way, and on port they are going the other way. I am sure there FAA procedures, and how lights are used, etc.. But I do not know what is the current SOP for ground traffic. I would imagine it be such that aircraft don't nose bump, have plenty of space, and traffic pattern facilitates expeditious departure. Of in DCS there is hardly any, unless you build a huge mission. But I have slightly harder time finding my way to the AC shelter, becouse taxiways of the main taxiway, don't have signs , 1-10 this way, 22-35 that away, etc.. The kneeboard does shelter and parking have numbers, so you have manually figure out which way to go. Use same shelter or pkg space and memory builds, but where is the fun in that. Really I would love for DCS to have its own ambient traffic, and clutter on the airfield, depending on some parameters, without having to manually set equipment and static aircraft. RL military airfields have limitations for size of AC that can park on a partuclar ramp. Obviously an AI 'Follow me Truck" and AI human aircraft directors would add to the ambiance of the scene.

The tower instruction "Taxi to parking area" is a little vague. I get the rule of thumb that on return to airbase, from which mission started, taxi to parking space or shelter from you started them mission. Still tower a little more direct and detailed, especially if landing at airbase, different from mission start. Airfields themselves are vague on how to get to that space. Airbases have signs, just like streets, that direct aircraft to general apron , or shelter area. I enjoy sticking to procedures as much as I can. Are taxieways, one streets? If so which way?

Thank you for link to manual. I also clueless about fixed net sight. The manual explanation did nothing to alleviate my bafflement.

Thank you. I though they are a variation of the same problem. Which is why modern fighters no longer use nose intakes. I went through Graham's SR-71 book, which explain UNSTARTs in detail, and my understanding of UNSTART and compressor stalls is that its a variation of same condition , stall, which is a perturbed air flow around airfoil or intake. But thank you. It makes sense. So then the spike in SR-71 and in MIG-21 have similar functions. Limit the air into compressor. I thought that spike slows the airflow to subsonic, to allow combustion at supersonic speeds.

I can try. At and above critical AOA, the aircraft is near stall, and air flow around lift surfaces, and ESPECIALLY INTAKE(s) is interrupted. The disturbed air ingested into engine compressor, does not flow around axial blades, and the volume of air is insufficient. The engine suffocates. In humans we call it hyperventilating. Man and engine are trying to breath, but there is too little air (oxygen at atmospheric concentration) ingested, for breathing. The low pressure compressor blades stall, and engine flames out. Oh, yeah, the man grabs a brown bag and breathes normally, reestablishing nice flow into his lungs. The engine has not shutdown cold, it just cannot burn the fuel mist, and generate hot gas for exhaust. For American designers inlets that use a spike to control volume of air for given conditions, the stall condition of interrupted air intake, is called UNSTART. In RL, crew can anticipate an unstart about 5-10 seconds into the future. First there is rumble at inlet, followed by a loud bang, followed by engine flameout with compressor still spinning due to windmilling. SR-71 was infamous for unstarts, and dealing with them compromised a large chunk of SR-71 aircrew training. Luckily for both -21 and -71 unstarted engine can be restarted in flight. From high-med. high altitude, place throttle at MIN, point nose down 10-15 to keep AC IAS at 600 kph or more. Keep wings level. Switch APU to ON, switch EMERGENCY AIRSTART to ON (UP) position. The engine should relight after 5-10 sec. If its not happening press (and perhaps hold) START button. Assuming you have fuel, and no damage to fuel system, the engine will relight. Once you go below 1000 AGL with no relight, time to contemplate ejection or dead stick onto runway or road, if possible. If engine relights, place throttle as needed to maintain level flight, level off, and don't forget to turn APU OFF. In MIG-21 it is an emergency, but really only dangerous at low altitude. Aircraft's system automatically moves inlet spike, based on a schedule of IAS, air pressure, altitude. Obviously the system can be damaged or malfunction. In DCS: MIG-21, if you stall the aircraft, expect a flame out. If aircraft goes into a spin, usually following stall, expect a flameout. Some 4th generation fighters, F-15, F-14,SU-27, MIG-29, and 4++ gen. F/A-18E/F/G deal with inlet and compressor unstarts by angling the intake leading edge. So those aircraft can fight at high AOA, and not stall the compressor. At high speeds angled intakes use bypass doors or equivalent to prevent inlet stalls and unstarts. USAF's fighter/bomber F-100 Super Sabre was notorious for inlet stalls, especcially on final. Which is worst time. You are low, slow, flaps down, gear down&locked, so AC is draggy, and has flight characteristic of a washing machine. The ATR-72 tragedy in Taiwan yesterday appears to be a stall following engine failure. Plus, on CNN and BBC, there is speculation that crew shut down their remaining good engine by mistake. ATR stalled on port wing, did uncommanded roll to port, and into the river they went. May God bless and keep the souls of those who perished! For more information: Google or YT SR-71, UNSTART, Col. Richard Graham, compressor stall.

Perhaps I missed 500L with stores guide for landing. It seems a little light. At 500 thats almost an empty tank, with no go around reserve. I have been landing without gear damage at 320 kph td with 1500L in tank, empty center tank still on pylon, and 2 R-60 on P3&4. With good chute less then 3/4 pf runway is used, and I think I float a little to log for slightly long TD. Its when I think I am running out of rway, and I am still not TD, I try to force td by reducing power or slightly nose fwd. Then I incur gear damage.

By golly. MIG-21 is the really the 1st AC in DCS where gross weight of AC is actually critical. Especcially on landing. Also on decision on when to return, as this AC uses gas like a V-16 Bugatti at 200mph. So is there a quick glance that tells you what the current GW of AC is at that moment?

Let me guess. Somebody told you to take your pitot and stick it someplace.

No in-flight refuel on MIG-21BIS?

The airmanship for landing bycicle geared aircraft is more demanding. Especcially with crosswinds. Depending on type, and landing g.weight, AC has to touchdown on single main gearstrut, or land such that two point touchdown with bulk of weight on main gearstrut and minor weight on rear gear. With almost no weight on outriggers. If landing in crosswinds, the gear must gimbaled to align with runway. Thats not even addressing one engine landing in Yak-28 and Vouture. Regarding AV-8B and GR-8, YT videos shows short or VTOL landing as being near perfect two point touchdown.

Well according to Wings of Red Star and Wiki MIG-21 has ceiling of 60,000 feet (18,000 meters). In DCS with empty -21 and 1/3 fuel, I cannot get above 13,000 meters (42,500 feet). Above this alt. my IAS is barely 320 kph. Even with flaps and/or AB I can't get to go faster or higher. Pull in flaps, and it drops. Obviously I know of no way to have a completely clean -21, i.e. without pylons. The effective usable ceiling with two R-60 and 400 liter center-line, is around 12,500 meters (around 41,000 feet).

Seems to OK for me. Set ASP to Giro, and set wing span (left dial). F-5 is 10 meters, F-15 is 15 to 20 meters. Shells loadout is AA. Maneuver such that wingspan of target spans the diameter of circle pipper or is larger then circle pipper. Press gun fire genltly and control burst length.

I would love to see some Difficult to fly and land aircraft with bicycle gear. YAK-28 or SUD Aviation Vouture. Obviously with AFM/PFM and systems models implemented.

Mast bumping. FLy the ship so that there is always at least .5g on rotor. It was/is a real life flight limitation that killed many a Western UH-1 crews in 1960's and 1970's. AVOID NEGATIVE G's. For overhilliing use collective instead of cyclic. I think this is a limitation on any semi-rigid or fully articulated rotor.

I have both and both are great. However UH-1H is more of a rewarding experience. It was more difficult to learn to fly, especially hover. I am not certain how to describe it, but KA-50 has less feel of speed at NOE altitudes.

No doubt the subject of optical landing system for Kuznetzov has been brought up before. Is there any plan to bring the lens and LSO talk-down to Kuznetzov? Cheers

F-8 or Mirage3 would be more appropriate for MIG-21 F-4 would be great, BUUUUTTTT. F-8 Crusader, A-4 Skyhawk, or Mirage III would be more appropriate. F-4 has crew of two, and is a heavy aircraft, not optimal for ACM. F-8, on other hand, was a true MIG killer during Vietnam. A-4 and Mirage III, met MIG-21 in Vietnam and over Middle East.

Easy to fly, easy to takeOFF, damn hard to land. I keep incurring gear damage. Landing speed between 320 and 340 kph. It 'appears' to me that my vv is within tolerance, touching down at -2 ms. Gear is down & locked with all three lights ON. Or so I think. But gear keeps getting bent. Not a crash, AC rolls down runway, but is difficult to keep straight and gear appears to be bent slightly inwards, with one (or other) bent a bit more. Front gear is OK, but AC has a bent attitude sitting on ground after landing. I am good with this difficulty, as I think that FC3 SU-27, SU-25, SU-25T, and F-15 AFM models are more forgiving on VV and gross weight at touchdown. A-10C is also easy to land. Too easy, I think. Nice experience flying a fast jet without HUD.

Is that an advantage or disadvantage to player doing ACM with AFM/PFM AC Is that an advantage or disadvantage to player doing ACM with AFM/PFM AC?

Not certain if this has been brought up before. I noticed that, in A-10C, the wingman's AC (also A-10C) is not flying with AFM/PFM. His movements are jerky, and unrealistic.

Really great flight model in FC3! If anything I think its too good. THe roll rate in DCS: F-15C is insanely fast. Can't beleive the real F-15 can do that. It rolls faster SU-27 PFM. Other surprising is F-15C ability to fight at 28 AOA. I was thinking that 20 it would stall and spin. However I have tried to spin F-15C going down to 100 KIAS then full rudder deflection, and stick side. Was thinking that it should depart and spin. But it did not. I did depart and winged over, but by the time nose pointing at ground its already above 150 KIAS and already controllable, though mushy.