Cake

I'm going to have to go with MiG 21 as my first choice, followed by EDGE, if it allows more of the world to be included.

Thanks for the suggestions. I can definitely test with another machine and I can try the USB 2 ports on my game rig. Right now I have them connected through USB 3.0 and a powered USB hub. None of the other axes spike at al all, including the warthog axes, so I just want to make sure it is 100% while there is still a return option on the table.

Just bought a set of these so they're brand new. They seem to work fine, but if I open the properties on them in Windows it appears the rudder axis is constantly exhibiting small spikes, particularly near center, but also through a pretty wide range. No problem with the brakes. Is this normal, or should I send them back for another set? Thanks.

No doubt about that. I think the F4s were pretty challenged, not really the right tool for the job. It'll be tough making them work well against the MiGs.

We're MiG23s involved in Vietnam? I thought it was mainly 17/19/21???

DCS: Operation Crimp - the first attempt to combine strategic bombing with a Doom like first person shooter in the tunnels under Vietnam. Seriously though, I think there is some great potential here. It's going to be really tough if my F4 doesn't have a cannon and ROE demand visual confirmation before engagement.

Zlin 526, very cool! Thanks for the kind words. Here's a link for the accident: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100717X74629&ntsbno=ERA10FA364&akey=1

Thanks. I just seem to be finding conflicting sources. So far I've seen 40", 50" 60", and 61". My friend was killed in a Yak52 crash two years ago, but I think he would have really appreciated DCS, especially because of the many connections to his flying career. With the upcoming releases, these connections are growing. Of the nearly 200 types he was qualified in, he had over 800 hours flying P51 / F51 variants. He had nearly 2000 combat hours in Vietnam where he earned 60 air medals, flying the UH1, AH1, and *I think* the RU21G, it was the military version of the King Air with antennas all over it. In the King Air, he actually survived a direct engagement by a MiG17, but in the process of maneuvering he bent the Beechcraft so badly the airframe was totalled. He really liked flying the AH-1 from the back seat, to him the view was similar to flying a P51, but he didn't like the side sticks up front. After the war he became a test pilot and flew numerous projects, using a wide variety of aircraft. Just before the Gulf War, he was scheduled to join an Air Force class to learn the A10 for a project, but the project was cancelled when all or most of the A10s headed toward Iraq, so he never got to fly one. He did have experience in both the AH64 and MiG21. In fact, he flew both of them against each other as part of a project. He was also a Warbird instructor, and flew and was qualified in P38, P40, F4U, B17, and B25 among many others. He was scheduled to go fly the RAF's Spitfire in the fall just after he died. It was a bucket list thing for him. The F86 was also on it, but that one would have been a long shot anyway. I think the F86 was the plane he never flew but badly wanted to. I was very lucky to know and fly with him. He was the kind of guy that would get up two hours early to take a half hour flight in a Pitts before he flew government projects all day. One thing is for sure, he would have known many of the answers for us. I do know a mechanic who was with the Tuskegee Airman during WWII. I see him every so often. Next time I'll try to remember to ask him about the temps question. He used to tell pilots back in WWII if they had any choice to fly something like the P47 instead of the P51 to do it, because any damage to the cooling system and you wouldn't make it home, whereas the P47s would come home still running with heads blown right off the cylinders and missing pistons, etc.

A couple of questions. 1. Take-offs. The ED manual suggests full power, but my understanding was that a normal take off should be performed with 40" MP. What is the basis for 61" MP on takeoff? 2. Go arounds. I can't find anything on this, but my friend, who had over 800 hours in P51s and F51s, told me, if I recall correctly, that 38" MP was used for any rejected landing because of limited rudder effectiveness at approach speeds. Anyone have official guidance on this?

Hehe, very responsible to suggest a nugget go out and try to exceed design load limits. No trouble at all.:pilotfly:

I think it would be good, except the Admiral K. Is going to seem a little funny in Lake Mead. Nevada has a pretty low airport density, and I like lots of airfields, so if it is Nevada it would be good also to have the part of California out to the coast.

I like your C130 idea. Makes me think AC130U. But what would be your top five heavy lifters? Would a KC135 fit in?

That would be cool. Btw, I think the B1B qualifies as a heavy, too :)

Exactly, for a given bank angle in a level turn, rate and radius are a function of airspeed. So an aircraft may use a certain bank angle, but the only thing that would then standardize their rate would be a certain airspeed. This is why some faster aircraft use half standard rate, and why I've never attempted a standard rate turn at Mach .78. At some point angle of bank becomes your limit, and 30 degrees will always be a gentle low G maneuver just as 60 degrees will always be 2g.

The procedure book, FAA-H-8261-1A is a good reference, and all the FAA books are available as PDF downloads on FAA.gov for free. I would highly this one, too, and as a prerequisite I'd recommend starting instead with: FAA-H-8083-15B, the Instrument Flying Handbook. The only caveat is the equipment were are flying here fits better with the Control Performance Method than the Primary and Supporting Method, so think Attitude power and configuration, which you already are based on the video. The video was just great. The author will make a good CFII some day. My feedback to the author is that: 1. You shouldn't descend and follow the glide path on the ILS if you aren't established on the localizer. The reality is that getting established is a lot easy when getting vectored by an approach controller. This btw, should be part of the sim. 2. When you're trying to center the localizer needle in the HSI, try aligning the lubber line with the CDI. This will result in a relatively small corrections for 1/4 scale deflection versus a larger correction for 1/2 scale deflection. Obviously this doesn't work with full scale deflections, but you need to be thinking missed approach and starting over in that scenario. Had you done this and flown directly to the TACAN as someone pointed out, the next try would have worked out better.

I agree. The most interesting fights are up close and personal. It came down to getting the most out of mismatched imperfect machines and high piloting skills were required. Those airplanes didn't fly themselves, despite the fact that the jet engine eliminated certain challenges formerly present. Even Korean War era jets like the MiG15 and F86 would be very interesting if they were modeled realistically, although I don't know how to simulate the advantages of an airplane with hydraulic flight controls versus one that didn't have them without force feedback. That said, I want the F15C and Su27 as much as I do the F86 and Mig15. Just give us everything ;)

I couldn't agree more. The important part is the fidelity of the airplane modeled. The great thing about DCS is the opportunity to learn different aircraft and their systems and then take them into realistic combat scenarios. Modern aircraft are super easy to fly, the real challenge comes in knowing how to employ them in combat. Older airplanes like the P51 are actually more difficult to fly. A go around or rejected landing in an a10 is a non event. Advance the throttle all the way in a p51 at Vref and I imagine that torque, p-factor, and spiraling slip stream will so grossly overwhelm the rudder that One wouldn't have much to say about it afterwards.. I remember my friend who had 800 hours in P51s saying that you could only use something like 38" of MP, does that sound right?. I think it's great that they added the P51. I bought it, but I'm too busy learning the a10 systems at this point to be distracted by it. That said, I can imagine it will be much more fun to fly and that will be my reward once I am done learning the A10, if that ever happens. Certainly, there is much more that needs to be done to complete the retro experience, but who wouldn't want P51 and f86 time in their logbooks?

Just bought a TM Warthog, I guess the Track IR is next. I haven't moved side to side in the seat yet, but I did try that in the P51.

Thanks. I was thinking this was bugged, but I am new to the sim so I will take your word that the pitch ladder is designed to follow the total velocity vector. Way back when I was a tester on the original SU27 Flanker products, so I am always looking for stuff that doesn't seem right. A little more experimenting shows that the FPM stays on the HUD, bust displays an <- or -> to show it is actually outside the HUDs FOV when crabbing sufficiently, and the pitch ladder sort of parks itself on the modified FPM in this case. This "design" seems sort of unfortunate, because even with coordinated non-aerobatic maneuvering the pitch ladder disappears completely from the HUD in certain cases, yes, even with the ball kept centered (or at least close to). Now the pilot needs to look down at the AI to control the aircraft absent of outside visual references. Is there some advantage to this that I am missing in linking the ladder to the TVV instead of the airplane lateral and longitudinal axes? Wouldn't it be preferable to have the reliable pitch and bank indications on the HUD at all times, and particularly when flying in the clouds? This makes what seems to be an unnecessary challenge for flying approaches, but I am probably spoiled by more modern avionics. Seems like it should be easier, with the pitch ladder staying centered and the flight path marker moving independently, but I guess this will just make navigation with 100 knot winds aloft or shooting an ILS approach to minimums with a 35 knot cross wind component more of a challenge. It seems my 'issue' is now with the actual A10C and not the sim. :beer: to ED and :ranting: to Fairchild Republic :) Liking the sim very much so far, just putting myself through the basics at this point - Not even close to combat yet.

There seems to be a bug here. Why would the pitch ladder be designed to shift completely off the HUD with the wind in straight and level flight? The pitch ladder is intended as the HUDs representation of an attitude indicator. The difference between magnetic heading and magnetic course is (or should be) irrelevant to the 'centering' of the pitch ladder in the display. Only the otientation of the airplane's axes relative to the earth should matter. I think this is a bug in the simulation, which aligns the pitch ladder left or right with the flight path marker. Of course, the FPM should move left or right of centerline when crabbing in straight and level flight, but there is no logical reason for the pitch ladder to follow the FPM as it does. In fact, even moderate winds aloft at traffic pattern altitude can cause the pitch ladder to completely follow the FPM off the HUD when crabbing in a strong cross-wind, for example when on the cross wind or base legs of when the wind is down the runway. This renders the AI functionality of the HUD useless in normal weather situations. Not sure how this can be by design?

bin\dcs_updater.exe uninstall CA does not work for combined arms under 1.2.3. Had to delete the Combined Arms folder to get rid of the nag screen.