Ktulu2

What I found : if you turn electronics while you have the gear handle down, your gear goes up. Once electronics are on, the lock mecanism kicks in and you need down lock orride. Guess I missread you first post, my bad. For me it worked n both 1.5 quickstart and ME

I happen to have tried it yesterday : It didn't work normally and worked with Down. Lock. Oride. This was with the gear up/Gear Down controls, not swapping gear (g).

Yep, watched it a few months back and it's great!

Humidity should also be a factor, though not sure it's in game. In 1.5 they vary a lot : The lower I had them was around 3000' (crazy cold weather) and the highest something like 30 000' in nevada in hot weather.

A2A : Wings are easy to pierce, but a small hole isn't too problematic, so you want something to set those wing tanks on fire, so Highly explosive/incendiary. For A2G : depends on the target, if you are taking out soft target (cars&trucks) either CM or HEI If you don't know/have mixed target/are against the average armored target, go with CM. If you know you'll face 20 tanks, take AP.

I do not contest the missile drag has an effect, just that it is relatively small, but to really have a solid proof you need a double integral, which already makes it hard to explain and than you have to consider the flight characteristics (temp, pressure/altitude, new lift coefficient, etc). BTW, the point of the wing being less effective because of the missile is something I hadn't thought of, and that I do not (yet) have the tools to study. But seeing how little DCS does according to you all this seems pointes LOL (had fun anyway) In any case, I want to be able to keep on fighting without jettisoning my second missile me too!!!

They are not as always, I've had 1.5NM miss on a head on target that aint manoeuvring, aim-9s getting notched (really, no manoeuvers nor flares...)

Sure, as I said...time to waste lol

The yaw AoA should not change the lift of a wing (assuming the wing is a pure plane, which isn't too far for a fighter symmetrical wing), as the area is the same and the speed of the air going over it is also the same. As for the Cl, I do not see why it would change as it is only affected by the ''real'' AoA and the AR. It will change things like the drag of the plane due to the fuselage being more exposed, which would only increase the yaw slip with a symmetrical fuselage. The only thing I see is that the portion of the wing that is behind the fuselage, as seen from the airflow, will have a disrupted/stalled airflow going over it, reducing the lift. But assuming a reasonable yaw AoA (<5°) for stable flight, the impact should be quite small compared to the torque the missile's weight does. The rest is just me having fun, just a very rough approximation to prove my point. We know all the wing will be in disrupted airflow if the AoA is 90°, and none if the AoA is 0. We can infer that the area under disrupted airflow will be proportional to Sin(Yaw_AoA), so 5° would be pretty small. This doesn't take the shape of the wing into account, but assuming a rectangular wing that is at 90° from the fuselage , the area is equal to the triangle formed by both orthogonal projections of the fuselage over the wing at 90° from the airflow and in the direction of the airflow. Meaning the area, for an angle of attack in yaw under arctan(wing span/wing root), is equal to Root*cos(AoA) [height] * Root*sin(AoA) [base] /2=R²sin(AoA)cos(AoA)/2=R²0.04341 This approximation also works fairly well for the F-5, as it has rectangular triangular wings, so as long as we stay below the max angle, it's good. Now, the area of the F-5 wing is 17.28m² and the wing span of one wing is 8.13/2=4.065m. Using an extenal model scaler, I could find that the tip root is 1.12m So A=(B+b)h/2 So 17.28=(B+1.12)*4.065 B=3.13m Area with disrupted airflow = 3.13²*0.04341=0.43m² In comparison to one full wing : 0.43/(17.28/2)=5% So one wing has 95% of the lift of the other. BUT this difference is a the beginning of the wing, so the torque generated by this difference will be even smaller. Now I could get exact numbers for the torque of the lost lifting area by using an integral, but at this point I feel like I'm it's unlikely someone actually reads through this so I'll stop here as I think that I have shown that the torque generated by the lift difference will be MUCH smaller than what the missile brings.

Same for any missile in DCS excepted the R-3R

Didn't get the 15 restart mid-flight, but I can confirm the rest, mods know about the F-15 lag, there were multiple threads on it.

Well, the only aerodynamic force an aim-9 brings in the vertical axis would be the minimal lift of the control surfaces, the drag of the missile will simply slow down the plane and induce a slide slip. Now, assuming the plane is flying at positive AoA, that supplementary lift should conteract the roll that the weight of the missile brings. That is of course taking the missile and the wing as two separate entities, which only works up to some extent and probably won't work at transonic speeds (which is not problematic here). Not sure if this is what you were implying? In anycase, my point was that if we have a roll, it should very mainly be caused by the weight of the missile, and not it's drag.

It should not be a drag issue : more drag on one side of the plane would induce a side-slip,not a roll, the weight of the missile is what seems to be causing the issue.

War ain't fair ;) Seriously though, its hard to balance, as reds are multiple time zones away

All missiles are completely broken

So how about you look into ejection seats. he purpose of an ejection seat is pilot survival. The pilot typically experiences an acceleration of about 12–14 g (117–137 m/s2). Western seats usually impose lighter loads on the pilots; 1960s-70s era Soviet technology often goes up to 20–22 g (with SM-1 and KM-1 gunbarrel-type ejection seats). Compression fractures of vertebrae are a recurrent side effect of ejection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejection_seat#Pilot_safety

Heck...we don't have AA missile proximity fuzes, don't hold your breath. This being said, that's more something ED could do than BST, as ED rules armament. For exemple, instead of having one generic Mk82, we could have one mark82 with each fuze setting we could choose in the rearming window.

THe brain has about 5s of oxygen reserve, so you can virtually sustain any amount of G while staying awake. The question is more whether your eyes will keep on working under such a load, as I've read plently times that pilots can loose sight under crazy amounts of Gs (ie : ejections, or the 70G instantaneous a guy pulled in experiments in the US [this might be hard to read for sensible ones] ) for a short period while staying relatively conscious.

^This minus the mavericks (not an A2G guy)

Yes, it would!!! It wouldn't be a F-5E-3!!!

As it has been said, if you want even more BFM, why don't you go in a server with immortal, unlimited fuel and weapons? That way you'll BFM as much as you want while BST can make the plane they decided to make.

I highly doubt you will see it : 1-We have no screen to use the maverick, so that would take A LOT of supplementary work on the devs. 2-We have the F-5E block 3 I think, so it's likely they either had another block or did their own modification on it.

Warps got fixed, that's about it.

Good thing the F-5 came out...Have something else to do while BVR/WVR with missiles stopped existing.

The ET as a missile has an horrible guidance and CCM, it will only hit you if you don't do your job.