Cake

If you are trying to make a coordinated level turn, a 90 degree bank angle is too much. At bank angles above 85 degrees, load factor is well over 9 G's and at 90 degrees, there is no vertical lift component, so the only way to maintain altitude would be to add rudder, unless of course you're at orbital velocities. Try developing skills turning the airplane and maintaining altitude at 70 and 80 degree bank angles. These would be like 3 and 6 g turns in level flight. You will need to pull the stick back enough to maintain altitude while in the turn at those angles and advance the thrust levers accordingly to maintain speed as induced drag increases.

The f86 had a pressurized cockpit, didn't it? I haven't bought the sim yet or read the flight manuals, but at 35,000 feet pressure altitude your cockpit altitude would be significantly less unless the pressurization failed.

We have plenty of rules in the US for airline transport, but it's certainly not that restrictive.

Never flown the Lear, but I think hydraulic systems would sort of be irrelevant. On the Lear, the hydraulics would be for flaps, spoilers, gear operation, brakes, and thrust reversers. Loss of hydraulics wouldn't have been the issue I don't think. Not sure what else might be hydraulic but I don't think any of the primary flight controls are. This is a relatively small jet. On the other hand, airplanes don't take collisions well. Flight control surfaces get destroyed in hangar incidents when tugs are moving them at a couple miles per hour. It wouldn't take much of a collision to render an airplane uncontrollable, especially the hit was in the wrong spot. Here in the US, F15s and F16s practice intercepts against civilian targets that are much slower than Learjets. One of my buddies used to fly Skyraiders into thunderstorms as part of a research project. He said it was a tough airplane, but it would come back full of dents, get torn down and rebuilt, and then they'd do it again.

I won't argue that, at least not for flying a sim, where I agree it's not a concern. Hypothetically, if I had a friend who had the choice of what to fly during WWII, other things being reasonably equal, liquid cooling was best avoided. Other than the pilots who didn't make it back and the mechanics who wrenched on these, most people have little appreciation for how fragile liquid cooled fighter engines were during WWII. Lose your coolant and you are screwed. The reality is that something as simple as a hose failing or coming off was problematic even without battle damage. The mechanics on these used to get taught to count how many drops of liquid leaked out in a given time to decide whether p51s were mission ready or not. Depending on the airplane, they did the same thing for oil and hydraulic fluid, too. On the other hand, radial engines were very tough and known to make it home with substantial damage. This is just my opinion after talking to guys who flew many of these types and wrenched on them during WWII.

Liquid cooled inline engine fighters certainly looked sexier compared to the air cooled counterparts, and that is great if someone else was taking them into battle. I'd go for the earlier version of the 190 with air cooling. Same for the American planes. A pilot would have to have been nuts to choose a p51 over a p47 if given the option. The engines were so fragile in comparison. Fine if you're not flying into enemy territory and getting shot at....

F-8.

I get this part, but do I have the new F15C with AFM or not? How can I tell? Do I need to install it separately from FC3 and DCS because it is in beta?

Just updated to 1.2.8 and own FC3, so why is there a buy link for F15? Also, when I go into settings for the F15C, I'm not seeing stuff like axis for wheel brakes. Doesn't that suggest something is wrong because they should be part of the AFM? Do I need to separately download and install the F15C module on top of 1.2.8 with flaming cliffs 3? Thanks.

Ditto. From a fighter pilot's perspective, the F8 was the one. The F4 is simply the popular choice of the public but not the best, just as the P51 was in WWII.

If they were slow and trying to make it work, wind shear may heave led to a stall and what we are seeing, but who knows? I guess we'll eventually hear from the NTSB.

Everyone wants what they want. Personally, I want all the real Navaids, waypoints, intersections, air spaces, published approaches, etc. There probably aren't many features that are "vitally important to the entire player base", but certainly flying approaches is a significant part of the experience of military aviatiors.

Just bought FC3 before the intermediate AFMs were announced. Considering I bought FC3 primarily for these two airplanes, I would not pay for an AFM unless it was a micro transaction, maybe $5 each. I strongly feel it should be free for FC3 owners, unless somehow a modular payment structure is implemented where there is an "upgrade" price that is less than the price for non FC owners. If this is the case, I would expect similar upgrade pricing for the full DCS version having already paid for the AFM. I've already bought the Su-27 for example several times, and this is ok, but it certainly wouldn't feel ok to be charged again for the AFM and then not somehow credited when the full version comes out. Sure, the product will be worth it, but frankly it would feel a little like I've been misled because I just bought FC3 as the only way to get the 27 and 15 in DCS prior to the full versions and definitely would not have had I known a better version of the two ac could be had soon for less. As it stands now, DCS has me spread too thin. I've become a user of all the modules and a master of none. Flying around in the Huey instead of mastering the A10. That said, the Su-27 is probably the more interesting of the two AFMs being discussed to me, so If the AFMs aren't free to FC3 owners, then they could be a buy that one only, or even just work with the Mig21 until the full versions are released.

I don't we all fully comprehend just how vastly more capable the F22 is compared to fighters in the F15 and Su27 generation. Think F16 vs Mig15 and you might be close. Perhaps watching the F14 A6M battles in The Final Countdown would be an exaggeration, but you get the idea. Yeah, and the ability to use stealth and engage without an enemy even realizing it is huge. I think this could be done well. Certainly, they would be a great option for mission creators to add color and variety, but I don't think they belong as a DCS module controlled by players. A6 is a great idea. I think we will end up seeing more stuff from this era as it is suited to what DCS does really well: getting an accurate representation of a real aircraft and modeling it in high fidelity.

If I were building a new rig and had to buy a Windows OS then I would go with 8, but if you already have a stable Windows 7-64 install then paying to go to Windows 8 seems like a waste. windows 7 64 bit is fine.

Parachute is only required if you want to do it more than once.

Relax, that was a joke :). My point was that just because you knew exactly what you were getting doesn't mean cpoco did. Sure, there are announcements and what not with specifications upon specifications, but the original poster is new to the community as it was his first post. Might not be fair to assume he has your knowledge. For example, I've been involved with The Flanker series since before Su-27 v1.0 was released, but I certainly didn't know "FC3 was a vast improvement over FC2" as you pointed out, because I skipped FC and FC2. Sorry, I like reading your posts, but just thought you came off a little rough on the new guy.

I agree. Especially with an AFM that models P factor, torque, spiraling slipstream, etc. Maybe someone can model the PT6A-68 variants and so more than one.

Wow. If you know what he knew, why didn't you warn him in advance? Seriously though, there was no guarantee for me that I'd like the DCS modules I bought. Sure, I had a idea, but I certainly did not get to try any of the modules for free first. Most people test drive cars before they buy, so this analogy is a stretch. It seems like if someone posts anything even slightly negative on here, people jump on them. Why is that? The product speaks for itself. When all the great positive feedback came on UH1 Huey, I'm glad everyone wasn't reminded that they knew what they purchased.

The F22 rocks in the real world, and while it would be fun to learn the systems, it certainly would be a strange fit in DCS world. How do you fit in a fighter that can probably solo kill 6 or more Su27s simultaneously and would be virtually invincible when it hunts in packs? If the F22 were available, it would basically suck flying anything else in terms of fighters in multiplayer..

No engine?

For those who want to know more about precession in Attitude Indicators, see below from FAA Instrument Flying Handbook: For an AI to function properly, the gyro must remain vertically upright while the aircraft rolls and pitches around it. The bearings in these instruments have a minimum of friction; however, even this small amount places a restraint on the gyro producing precession and causing the gyro to tilt. To minimize this tilting, an erection mechanism inside the instrument case applies a force any time the gyro tilts from its vertical position. This force acts in such a way to return the spinning wheel to its upright position. The older artificial horizons were limited in the amount of pitch or roll they could tolerate, normally about 60° in pitch and 100° in roll. After either of these limits was exceeded, the gyro housing contacted the gimbals, applying such a precessing force that the gyro tumbled. Because of this limitation, these instruments had a caging mechanism that locked the gyro in its vertical position during any maneuvers that exceeded the instrument limits. Newer instruments do not have these restrictive tumble limits; therefore, they do not have a caging mechanism. When an aircraft engine is first started and pneumatic or electric power is supplied to the instruments, the gyro is not erect. A self-erecting mechanism inside the instrument actuated by the force of gravity applies a precessing force, causing the gyro to rise to its vertical position. This erection can take as long as 5 minutes, but is normally done within 2 to 3 minutes. Attitude indicators are free from most errors, but depending upon the speed with which the erection system functions, there may be a slight nose-up indication during a rapid acceleration and a nose-down indication during a rapid deceleration. There is also a possibility of a small bank angle and pitch error after a 180° turn. These inherent errors are small and correct themselves within a minute or so after returning to straight-and-level flight. Note sure about how it's modeled in DCS. Does it correct itself after leveling out for a minute or two?

Nice!

Is that a drink holder or ash tray?

Ships can have TACAN and obviously any system that broadcasts as a Nav aid is broadcasting it's location, not so good an idea. Some systems are on demand, but I think that must have been replaced by now with some type of ship-based WAAS?