some1

As far as muddying basic understanding, it's you who brought propeller tips exceeding the speed of sound into this discussion. Despite what you wrote, this is not the reason for RPM reduction after takeoff, or for the continuous RPM limit lower than MAX. Propeller going supersonic may be a factor in high speed flight at altitude, but not during slow climb in a dense air near the ground.

Just to get everyone on the same page, as I have some doubts if you all talk about the same thing. http://essentialpilot.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/f0268-01.gif low pitch = fine pitch. That's high rpm setting. Also higher drag if the engine is windmilling. high pitch = coarse pitch. That's low rpm setting. Also lower drag if the engine is windmilling. Maximum RPM is determined only by engine redline. The propeller is driven by reduction gear, which in case of Mustang/Spitfire keeps prop RPM below 1500 when the engine does 3000. If the engine spun faster, or the prop was bigger, they would simply install larger reduction gear. The engine redline is usually determined by the engine ability to handle inertia forces of its pistons and valves. But as you've said, the engine is not supposed to immediately disintegrate from running at rated max rpm. High RPM low throttle setting is the worst for economy not because of the propeller, but, among other things, because the fixed engine driven supercharger robs the engine of a few hundred HP at such speed, while at the same time the supercharger output is immediately wasted because of closed throttle. It's burning extra fuel for nothing.

The manual says "a potentiometer with 3 markers" which suggests an axis.

An axis I think.

Manual target wingspan setting, used when you don't have radar lock.

If you own a Rhino, you should be able to simply click the "sticky" checkbox for the spring effect in VPforce configurator, and that should override whatever DCS is setting. Obviously use this option only when flying F-16.

According to Razbam's own manual and the information posted on the forum, the radar should complete full scan in 1.3 seconds. But in the current DCS version it doesn't match this number and there are multiple problems with targets depiction in the Mig-19. 1. The targets on the screen are not updated every 1.3 seconds, but much less frequently, only once in roughly 3-4 seconds. 2. On top of that, there's also more delay built into the system. For example if I turn right, the target starts drifting to the left on the screen. When I reverse the turn, the target keeps drifting to the left for another 1-2 cycles, before it comes back to centre. So in total, the information shown on the radar screen is 5-10 seconds old. Check the attached track. 3. The same delay is also visible in the vertical. It takes 5-10 seconds for the radar to switch the target between "above" and "below" indication after I change pitch. Also shown in the attached track. 4. The vertical sweep line that travels across the screen is the only thing that updates in DCS every 1.3 seconds, but it only paints the ground clutter. It has no correlation with target updates whatsoever. And if it is meant to depict the radar antenna "sweep", then it's also completely incorrect due to this particular radar construction. The search radar has two antennas spinning together at constant speed, one pointed slightly upwards, the second downwards. Together they scan the whole area in front of the aircraft, one full scan equals one rotation of the assembly. So it's actually two sweeps in each full scan, with a brief pause in-between, when the assembly is oriented perpendicular to the flight path. It also means that the targets that are at the same level as the radar will be caught by both antennas. So where does this 1.3s for the full sweep comes from in Razbam manual? @foxbat155 discussed it here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/192125-mig-19-ground-radar-return-test/?do=findComment&comment=3758423 but that math does not check out. If the assembly really spins at 80 RPM, then one scan should take 0.75s, not 1.3s. Even faster than what Razbam manual states, and much, much faster than the current implementation in DCS. Either way, the Mig-19 radar in DCS fails at the primary task for which the thing was created in real life, and that is performing intercepts at night or in low visibility. With 5-10 seconds lag as it is now, getting into position behind the target that you can't see is more a matter of luck than anything else. You can try it for yourself, I've attached a simple mission with clear night, AWACS and two targets in front of you flying straight. Have fun PG_night_intercept_MiG19.miz zMigRadar.trk

Sounds like you have curves set in DCS. Curves on joystick axis and FFB don't work together.

It seems that some changes are planned

Not what I'm seeing, but nevermind, our experiments have to assume that DCS engine fuel consumption is dead on accurate. Either way, both manuals agree that the maximum speed for safe droptank release is 0.85M, so if your goal is high performance intercept, you have to get rid of it before you go supersonic. There's no penalty for releasing the tank with some fuel left in it.

The high performance intercept profile "by the book" is: takeoff, accelerate to 0.85M at 1000 meters, then climb to 10 km at 0.85M, then accelerate to supersonic speed in level flight. Load the aircraft with missiles, subtract ~100 kg of fuel for startup and taxi, then try this profile. By the time you reach 10 km, the tank will be empty or nearly empty.

Different manuals from different years can have different numbers, there isn't much room for interpretation. It may be an early limit that was lifted in later years. The fuel tank is a disposable item, by the time you reach supersonic it's empty anyway.

The Polish manual for the early type indeed says 0.9M limit with the centreline tank, no G limit if empty, otherwise up to 4g. 0.8M limit with A2G ordnance.

Not quite, the error is bigger than that. More like whoever coded it, thought the diamond ring should form inside the aircraft silhouette, rather than outside. The bug also means that the gunsight is very inaccurate if you try to use it by the book. Dialing the real target distance read from the aircraft labels gives better result, but obviously that's a cheat.

The pinky rotary is an axis, with a center detent. Not spring loaded. The right F-15EX throttle also has an axis that is spring loaded to center, which works more like the pinky rotary in the real airplane.

Every mission with static buildings added in the editor looks ridiculous. zA10.miz

HMD TGP preview has brightness fixed at 100% regardless of HMD brightness setting, which makes the feature completely useless. HMD at 20% brightness HMD at 0% brightness HMD at 100% brightness A10hmd.trk

The milion dollar question is, does ED consider SAU system part of Flight Model or Systems Modelling.

Maybe this is the issue: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/341945-gunsight-ranging-is-incorrect/#comment-5366855

The ring size does not match the target wingspan at the distance read from the scale. This results in inaccurate gunsight ranging. Su-27 has a wingspan of 14.7m, distance is set to 300 meters on the scale, yet when label says 300m the aircraft does not fit the circle. GunsMig15.trk

Polish one. It's more of a question of what will be the cutoff point for ED. You could argue the same way, that our F-16 block is "wired" for APKWS and bunch of other weapons, good luck with convincing ED to add them. Personally I don't mind having extra weapons to choose from, the more the merrier.

Not really, as the manual I have explicitly says that the weapons on symmetrical pylons should be of the same type and version. So no mixed rockets salvos. But that manual also does not mention R-27T at all, so who knows how things worked when that weapon was added.

I don't think R-27T was used on early MiG-29 variants. Maybe as a later mod/update.

Not much difference except for western radios and imperial cockpit instruments. Underwing fuel tanks may or may not be an option in ED model.

That's an AI picture, no real aircraft looks like that