Pilum

Well, each to his own but I still think the total effort to do a JA-37 meaning no need to do a RB-04, no Baltic map and no ships etc and just adding the JA-37 like they did the Mig-21 would require much less effort and I definitely think the JA-37 is a hotter ship but sure, if ground pounding is what you prefer I can see your point. OTOH I still believe there is a larger customer base for the JA-37 but of course that is just my $0.02. :)

Well assuming it’s the Viggen and the hints indicating that it’s the attack version with the RB-04 are true then I think this is a strange choice. Not only do they have to develop the plane, they also have to make the RB-04 and get a reasonable FM and sensor suite for that missile up and running which seems quite challenging. They also need to do the Baltic scenario and top that up with some interesting ships to target. The attack versions only had Sidewinders for self-defence so a2a with the AJ is not going to rock my boat. Adding all that up it seems like a lot of work. However, since DCS is mostly about a2a then I think they could have made it easier on themselves and done the JA-37 instead. The JA-37 can carry the full suite of a2a ordnance with different versions of AMRAAM, Sky Flash and Sidewinders (already implemented in DCS) and could be interesting to fly in the DCS environment against the Su-27 and F-15 without adding any new map scenarios. In fact, in its late life, I think a lot of thought in the JA-37 program centered (both in terms of equipment and tactics) on how to counter the threat posed by the Su-27 family so suitable opposition is already there in the sim. Also looking at this from a sales perspective I think the DCS consumer base for a potent fighter is far larger than for a Sidewinder armed ground pounder. But sure, I will get the AJ-37 if it’s as good as Mig-21. It’s just I would have preferred and also think the JA-37 would have been the better choice for LNS……..

Well I look forward to seeing the results and hope that the DCS Spitfire Mk9 will be just as pleasant to fly as most pilots who have had the pleasure to fly it in real life seem to agree on. :smilewink:

Strictly speaking I don't agree but if that's how you feel them I'm OK with that and I can do without the ice-cream as well if you're not sharing. :)

Yes well I'm quite convinced Supermarine engineers are past the schoolboy calculations stage so no worries there. Sure things change with different power settings but let me get this straight: Are you saying the Mk9 is unstable in all but gliding conditions?

Thanks, I'll have the vanilla! :thumbup:

I use very simple logic: Crumpp claims the Spitfire Mk9 is unstable. My claim is you don't add ballast in the tail to a plane which is unstable. You add ballast to REDUCE stability, ergo the Spitfire Mk9 is stable. You don't agree? You could of course calculate and compare the Mk5 and the Mk9 CG locations as you say but I don’t see that you need to: If we take the Mk9, the designers added 17.5 lb ballast, not 5 or 25 lb but exactly 17.5 lb. Now they had the option to abstain or add whatever amount of ballast they wanted but elected to add exactly 17.5 lb. I agree with you that they added the ballast to return to a WANTED level of stability. This CG position may or may not be like the Mk5. However I don’t see we need to do the detailed calculations for each mark since they obviously added what they thought necessary to achieve the flying qualities they wanted in the Mk9. Now we could of course assume that they added the ballast in the tail to get the instability that Crumpp claims plagues the Mk9 but why would they? Really, this thread is now over 20 pages and Crummp’s theory is looking more and more like Bertrand Russel’s proverbial teapot. Looks like it’s time to remind ourselves that it’s not we who should prove that Crumpp’s teapot does not exist but Crumpp who should convince us it’s out there orbiting the sun somewhere.

Nope, the ballast is the needle that pops your "The Spitfire Mk9 is unstable" balloon. :smilewink: Your attempt to connect the ballast ONLY to the empty weight CG is the red herring. The ballast affects the CG for ALL load conditions. Since you are so fond of "maths" why don't you calculate the effects at different load conditions? You will find that in all cases the CG is moved back. Since a lot of discussion has been concerning the CG without fuel in the rear tanks I calculated that and it turns out the CG is shifted circa 0.5" back in this particular case. So again, as shown in post #195, the only plausible reason they did this was to lower the stability of an already stable aircraft. However if you want to prove that the Spitfire Mk9 was unstable already without the ballast and that they added ballast in the tail to shift the CG even further back thus increasing instability even further then knock yourself out! :joystick:

Ok Crumpp, I thought explaining that since the Spitfire Mk9 had ballast in the tail this would help you understand that it was not unstable but apparently a more detailed explanation is necessary: If we start off with the aircraft in a configuration that you above call the original CG location this can be either: a) Stable b) Neutral c) Unstable Now in your example above the aircraft is changed and the ballast is added to move the CG back to it's original location to as you say "maintain the stability characteristics of the original aircraft", i.e. maintain one of the states a), b) or c). Since ballast is added in the tail this means that the aircraft (in our case the Spitfire Mk9) BEFORE moving the CG back to it's original location by means of the ballast, the CG HAD to be located further forward. I.e. the states were: d) More stable e) Somewhat stable f) Somewhat unstable Now from these states we add the ballast to states d), e) and f) to return to the original states a), b) and c). So making a sanity check, when is it expedient to add ballast? Let's begin with case f): We add ballast to make an airplane that is somewhat unstable more unstable? Hmmmmmm, no that does not sound like a good option..... OK, then, what about case e): We add ballast to make an airplane that is somewhat stable neutral? Emmmmm......no, me no like going from a small stability margin to neutral... So what about case d): We add ballast to make an airplane that is more stable less stable? Hmmmm, yes that seems plausible.... But wait? What does this mean? Wait for it, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait for it: It means, it means, the Spitfire Mk9 has to be stable!!!!!!!!!! :clown_2:

I think you misunderstand Yo-Yo: I never claimed you said the Spitfire Mk9 was unstable. But unless Crumpp changes the title of the OP then someone for sure IS claiming the the Spitfire Mk9 is UNSTABLE. The questions are directed to Crumpp since he is the one claiming the Spitfire Mk9 is unstable. IMHO the answer to question 1 is you don't add ballast in the tail to an unstable plane. You add ballast to decrease the STABILITY of a STABLE aircraft. Ergo the Spitfire Mk9 is STABLE. Q.E.D. I think the answer to question 1 also answers question 2 so I'm not holding my breath on that one........

Two questions to the OP regarding your claim that the Spitfire Mk9 is unstable: 1) The Spitfire Mk9 had 17.5 lb ballast and a 5 lb ballast mounting in the tail. Why would the designers put ballast in the tail of an unstable plane? 2) You say you are in possession of a report on the Spitfire Mk9 showing it to be unstable. What report is this?

Well assuming it's the Viggen, any ECM pods modeled, be it U22 or U95 will be little more than eye candy anyway: currently, ECM jamming in DCS is restricted to simple low power noise jamming with radar burn through achieved at long ranges so basically WW2 level technology......... Finally, If it's not the Lada but a Mini-Cooper I want it in British racing green livery. :yes:

BTW: Especially note usage of "fast vehicle", i.e. Mini-Cooper to test flares on page 33!

Here is a link to a paper that contains a lot of details on different Swedish indigenous EW equipment of which some hung on the Viggen. Must say I'm surprised by the level of detail, even early JAS39 Gripen systems are covered but since it's been available at the Viking Roost site for years it's probably been suitably vetted.:music_whistling: I know it's in Swedish but don't be discouraged: Just cut n' paste into google translate and you'll get more detailed info on EW than is usually available. Enjoy! http://www.vikingroost.org/pdf/MMrapport__utg_2.pdf

Well, well, what a surprise........:music_whistling:

And let's not forget the elevator tab! :cheer3nc:

Gee, I hope this will be "well received" then and there will not be too many complaints from people who find being able to trim troublesome!:megalol:

Starting this thread is showing ED I care and want this. However, seeing the enthusiasm people have in the forums for all the new modules planned may lul ED into thinking we don't care about other issues like the AI. Why should they spend any effort on fixing AI if no one asks for it? I have bought every WW2 module up till now but frankly I'm not interested in chasing AI with fairy tale FM or doing the circuit at Sochi any more. IMHO ED needs to understand that there are other customers demands and that simply maintaining status quo and pumping out new modules will not hold water any more. At least not in my book. However, if the devs step up and fix this then I'll happily continue to finance development, otherwize not so much.... Nope. Never bought a module with any sense of entitlement. However, I can vote with my feet and as you say, if I'm not happy with the current state of affairs, I don't have to buy. However, I thought it would be civil to let the devs know before I pull any plug. Let's be honest: the AI have been like this for years. It's time something was done.

I think the WW2 aircraft in DCS are great and I enjoy flying them as such but… For those of us that enjoy a quick spin in SP when we can find the time, AI behaviour is important. Frankly, compared to other flight sims, even legacy ones, the DCS WW2 AI are simply too simplistic and I’m tired of seeing them pull up to stall speeds, jerk their plane around unaffected by torque, pop flaps and hang there etc. Also, it’s getting rather tiresome flying out of a modern day airport with buildings, radars and factories in a WW2 fighter. While I’ll continue with the modern modules, I don’t think I’ll get any more WW2 modules until this is fixed. I bought some at full price as a sign off support. Now I’m doubtful I will buy the coming ones, certainly not at full price anyway, unless these basics are fixed. Don’t know how many others share my sentiment but my guess is that if DCS wants to retain and improve sales of their WW2 modules, I think they need to fix the AI and get a decent WW2 map environment up and running pretty soon… I understand DCS has plans in both areas so I’m hoping for the best but these factors are make or break factors for me…

Yes, but it's been about 6 months since this issue was listed as [FIXED INTERNAL] so I don't think a status update would be out of place.

Your point being?

Well it was a nice list of fixes and I don't want to be a killjoy, but I'm missing one IMHO important one related to the Mig-21 R-3R missile FM that has long been listed as [FIXED INTERNAL] so what's the status on that one? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2308197#post2308197

+1 :thumbup:

Sure, a Gotland scenario would be nice as well and I suppose you could think of F-14's over Gotland since that plane does have some legs. However, it would be quite audacious to move carriers into the Baltic in a shooting war but I suppose they could launch from off the Norwegian coast and still get the job done :smilewink:

If they do the Viggen I hope it will be the JA37: The AJ-versions did not have an internal gun and could only fire Sidewinders. Seeing a2a combat is the thing that interests most in DCS, doing a AJ-version would be nice but maybe not appeal to a broader consumer base. In addition the JA-37 could carry the Rb99 and Sky Flash missiles both of which could be added with a minimum of effort since the game already includes the AIM-7 and AMRAAM. Also, while it is true that the PS-46A radar was mainly for a2a, it did contain limited support for ground attack. However, doing an accurate model of the JA-37 radar, avionics, ECM and display systems would be a huge undertaking. And about the map: Since we know about the F-14, if the other plane is a Viggen then why not do a Northern Scandinavia map? This area was of strategic interest both for NATO and the WP during the Cold War: NATO to contain the Soviet Northern Fleet above the GIUK gap and for the WP forces it was important to gain access to the Atlantic. In addition, IIRC then the USN sometime in the 80’s adopted a more aggressive policy for the northern flank to bottle in the Soviet Northern Fleet by deploying carriers far north….. So in this map scenario, the JA-37 and F-14 could co-exist and if they plan to do the Mig-23/27 later this would fit in perfectly as well. :)