wernst

Hello from Germany, nice, detailed and truly helpful map, thanks for your efforts. There is only one thing I didn’t understand well. The legend lists a yellow hexagon sign with center numbering which means this field has the Russian RSBN and PRMG as navigation aid. The map displays 16 fields with this yellow hexagon sign. But as far as I know DCS world has only 4 fields with this Russian version of VOR/ILS. What do the other 12 signs represent?

made it! Stupid error. I was guided in RTN mode always to the wrong ILS approach heading just opposite to the active one. Thanks to grunf's cockpit view I could see that his KRYMSK ILS approach is to RWY 22. I tried this approach and it worked fine. Thank you grunf. Recently I've seen somewhere else in this forum a map of fields with Russian ILS. This map indicated with red direction arrows that these fields have ILS approaches in both directions. Wrong. Case closed.

Yes, that's how it should be. There is only one strange thing. At the right down side of the HUD where the NAV mode is displayed I can see "LNDG". My Su-27 shows at this position "NOC", the Russian shortcut for landing. Just to make sure, was it the Su-27 in DCS 1.51?

Vaild question. Yes, in Landing (NOC) mode I precisely stick to the indicated ALT and HDG when intercepting the “initial landing approach point”. I considers this point comparable to the IAF of the standard ILS procedure.

Would be nice if you can check, I don’t know what is going wrong. The Russian ILS system seems to be less complex but more effective at the same time. I’d like to find out. The other issue I have with the Russian NAV system has been posted under "NAV mode “RETURN” without airfield designator". I assume the field designators were omitted by the DCS programmer and not by the designer of the real thing.

The RETURN mode (BO3B) gives guidance to “initial landing approach point” of the selected airfield. When arriving at this point the NAV system automatically switched to "Landing" mode which is indicated as “NOC” on the HUD. Simultaneously, in addition to the navigation mark, a small "ILS deviation mark" (director circle) should appear in the HUD Center. And, on the bottom of the HUD, a “localizer beam indicator” and a “glide path localizer index” should be visible. But neither the small director circle nor the localizer indicator or glide path index appear. I learned that this kind of ILS display is dedicated to airfields with the Russian ILS system only. I tried ILS approaches to three airfields with Russian ILS: URKW, URKL, URKH. None of these fields give the kind of ILS display functionality as described above. did I miss anything?

Just to complete my comments made earlier: Your Point 4 (if there are close headings) then “use distance and direction as discriminating factors”. You propose a workaround for the workaround!! Using “distance and direction” is the basic problem and the reason why I have posted here.

Are you able to read from the small HIS scale the unique RWY heading with the precision of one degree to know which airport has been selected?? e.g. SOCHI (06) KOBULETI (07) KUTAISI (08 ) SENAKI (09)

This is just an acceptable solutions I can live with. I wonder whether this kind of "basic" NAV functionality simulates the real thing.

Thanks, darkfire Although these proposals will work they are somewhat unrealistic. Either solution doesn’t help much when being lost somewhere, exhausted from a delicate Mission and want nothing more than getting to the home field asap. But there is no single push button NAV function “home”. The procedure to follow is: I have to switch the COM menu and search for my home base in the list of airfields sorted by distance. Let’s say, my home field is at third position from top of the COM list. I then have to go to the NAV / RETURN menu cycle through the airfields and look which airfield is distant on third. Done. Really? The Englisch translation for what we say in Germany for this kind of “solution”: From the rear through the breast.

For Su-27 navigation there are 4 NAV modes available. One mode is “BO3B” (RETURN) which is designed to navigate to the initial landing approach point of an airfield which has been selected. When cycling through the nearby airfields available the direction to an airfield will be displayed on the HDD as a course line and the distance is shown in the lower part of the HUD. So far so good. But I do not have any information WHICH airfield I have selected, there is no airfield designator. I may only guess from steering direction (course line) and distance to which airfield I’m guided. Upon arrival I may ask TOWER where I am. Did I miss anything?

No serious problem, but I wonder why only a white screen appears after start, no DCS logo. The white screen stays for about 50 seconds after startup. At the end of startup with white screen the DCS logo appears flashing for less than a second only. Yes, cosmetic only, but what's wrong? The program itself has no issues.

?? A couple of minutes ago SiThSpAwN wrote: "2.0 only, Map will come with 2.0 from what we know right now". ??

Just one year ago Wags said: “The first new map being developed for DCS World 2 is the NTTR map.” I wonder whether the new NTTR map to be released in November is compatible with DCS World 1.5 or 2.0 ?

o.k., I learned that it is standard landing procedure keeping speed brakes extended until landing completed. I was always using the speed brakes to control the speed to 170 kts IAS before I lower gear and flaps. Afterwards I closed the speed brakes controlling speed by power only. With less success. Obviously wrong . . . with Sabre flight model! But I still wonder how a Sabre could fly like a glider with gear and flaps down, speed brakes in (closed) and power set to idle. It’s not a glider which performs a glide ratio up to 1:70. Gliders do need to have speed (air) brakes, it’s essential. Without air brakes a glider would never safely come down to the beginning of the field. ..

just to make sure: You don't keep the airbrakes ON (extended) until touch down, do you? . .

Yes, there seems to be something odd with the flight model of the Sabre, e.g. when flaps are deployed. Flaps should give a nose down pitching moment and slow down the plane. But with the Sabre it’s the opposite. Flaps give a strong nose up pitching moment when deployed. You’ll have to down trim quite a lot to compensate for level flight. And, even more surprising, the plane does NOT slow down significantly when flaps are lowered fully and power set back to idle. All real SEP planes which I have flown, e.g. C206 (2.000 kg take-off weight) are getting nose heavy and reduce speed after flaps are deployed. The C206, which is much less heavy than the Sabre, would bleeding off airspeed and immediately start sinking like a stone as soon as I pull throttle back to idle. There is no way to safely land this real SEP plane with idle power. Not the Sabre (flight model). Neither power back nor flaps down have any noticeable effect on speed and sink rate. Sometimes the Sabre flares endlessly over the runway, it feels as being in a glider. Only the speed brakes help to finally come down, hopefully before the end of the runway. My way for landing the Sabre (flight model) is an unsafe flat approach with carefully keeping the speed in the (unhealthy) range of 110 - 120 kts IAS on final. A tail wind gust could finish this kind of unnatural approach immediately. .

Yes, of course, attention to correct airspeed is essential. That's basics. All I'm saying is that getting to correct landing airspeed seems difficult. Trimming the Sabre is another "speciality". It's the only (real) airplane of which I know which gets tail heavy when being trimmed. For me the only safe way to land the Sabre is to make a flat approach keeping speed at max. 130 kts and carefully watch speed when flaring above ground avoiding stall below 110 kts. I'd like to see your video but it's blocked: "private".

When flying F-86 at 160 - 170 kts IAS on downwind, gear down, flaps deployed and turning to (long) final the speed would not slow down even with power cut (throttle to idle). Lowering the angle of attack to approach config makes this phenomenon even worse, speed increases. Even with speed brakes deployed I can’t reduce speed to healthy landing at 120 kts, All real planes I have flown, e.g. C206 with 2.000 kg take-off weight, would start descending like a stone and bleeding off airspeed as soon as I pull throttle back to idle with nose up config. The original F-86 flight manual advices throttle to idle AFTER touchdown with 110 kts. This strange behavior can be observed with other DCS aircraft too, but less pronounced.

Increasing approach angle = increasing angle of approach = steeper approach = increasing angle of descent you may even find more terms for the same effect. Do you still claim flaps have nothing to do with this effect?

Do you really want to claim, that not the flaps but the speedbrakes of the F-86F are primarily intended for increasing the angle of approach??? What do you guess is "the intended use-case" of the flaps? The speedbrakes do what the name suggests - only. How can shape and position (on fuselage) of the speedbrakes increase the curvature of the wing in order to raise lift and reduce stall speed during approach?

I found earlier forum threads regarding "F-86F flaps and nose-up attitude“ http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127873 An extended description of flaps’ flight physics can be found here: http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/use_of_flaps.htm In short: “Flaps contribute primarily to the landing approach angle by increasing the 'braking effect' of drag. The drag is used initially to increase the approach angle without a corresponding increase in speed.” Yes, that is what I 'm expecting as the main feature of flaps. Increasing the angle of descent (with better runway sight and obstacle clearance) without increasing speed. Other behavior than that seems to make no sense or may even be dangerous (nose up and stall)

perfect, Justin - NDB approach even without DME, calculating time, sink rate and speed "free-handed", that is true IFR fidelity. IFR check passed. Yes, it's annoying that neither the radio compass nor the heading indicator has a reference mark on top of the instrument. How can I set the appropiate course on each instrument properly? Even a few degrees off may guide me into wilderness. I assume you are a real pilot. I have a question. As soon as I apply flaps in the F-86F the nose goes up distinctly and I have to trim nose down quite a bit. This attitude is opposite what I experience in other planes (virtual and real ones) Applying flaps in other planes have generally a nose down effect of different intensity which I compensate with trimming nose up. Do you have any explanation for the nose up behavior of F-86F when setting flaps?

Now I get it. Placing the Dora on a carrier for take off isn't an option in the Mission Editor. Because there wasn't any functional German WWII aircraft carrier. The only carrier "Graf Zeppelin" was under construction during WWII and had never been finished. But for the P-51D it could be a possible option for the sim. On Nov 15, 1944, naval pilot Bob Elder started flight tests in a P-51D-5-NA 44-14017 from the deck of the carrier Shangri-La. This Mustang had been fitted with an arrestor hook, which was attached to a reinforced bulkhead behind the tail wheel opening. Note: There wasn't any catapult support.

what do you mean by "...tried to turn it around after landing..."? I don't see anything wrong with this extraordinary landing. You didn't even use of the full landing area of the carrier. Great. This video is pretty challenging to all who are complaining here about Dora bugs.