Hummingbird

Yes I do use a curve of 15 for both pitch, roll and rudder, but it still feels very unstable and imprecise to control IMO. Definitely the most nervous heli I've flown in DCS so far.

Don't know if it's just me, but I find the Mi-24 extremely twitchy to fly, and very unstable in pitch, esp. when compared with the Ka-50 which I find very stable and smooth by comparison. Flying the Hind it feels like I'm constantly on a knives edge, and I'm having a very hard time being precise and smooth with it. Now I'm no rotorhead, so I don't know if this is realistic or not, it was merely the first & biggest thing that has struck me after a few hours of getting to know the thing. Is it supposed to be this nervous in the air?

Perhaps, I was mostly concerned with the FM. Avionics wise it's hard to tell, but Spectre seems to know a lot about the EF in this regard, so I'd trust his word on it.

Yes, also not saying Spectre is wrong, it's just hard to say anything definitive without a baseline figure to go from. That said I have it from two inside sources now that full 9 G capability is available with full internal fuel + 4x AIM-120's + 4x IRIS-T's. So we know that much. Wether it goes down from there, or 9 G is still available with a full centerline tank on top, that I don't know however (couldn't get an answer on that). With two wing tanks on top 9 G is likely not be available anymore, Spectre expressed it wasn't, and based on a PM discussion with him, he's convinced me he is probably right about that.

Well without knowing the load restrictions with those stores, we can't say. Math is only good if you have a baseline figure to start from. That said, I haven't seen many other aircraft do airshow demos with load outs like these:

Only problem is you told her the sky was red; "I'm not trying to be hostile to you or what you linked to. I’m taking issue with it's claims (F-15E outperformed a Typhoon in BFM)." So it turns out I was actually that helpful guy who made you realize you were colourblind

I doubt he means with empty tanks. Based on displays with way more stuff hanging underneath, I'd venture saying 9 G is most likely available with a full A2A load out + 2x 1,000 L atleast partially filled bags. That's merely an assumption though, the SME's know the actual answer. That said the EF's structure, due to more extensive use of composite materials, on top of being lighter probably features a very high plastic deformation limit, allowing for a higher operational load limit across different weights to be maintained - eventhough the ultimate load limit might at the same time actually be lower than with conventional materials. That's generally the advantage of using composites anyway, the practical load limits being much closer to the ultimate limit, allowing for structural weight reductions.

Thanks QuiGon. So that is actually more than I remembered, i.e. A2A load out with two external bags of gas, not just one, and still 9 G available. That's impressive.

Well I have to say the following puts it rather bluntly that the EF was dealing out a proper spanking: 1) "Typhoon proved to be the real winner in the exercise, despite aircraft performance being reduced for security purposes" 2) "At no time did a Typhoon pilot feel threatened" 3) "Typhoons were always on top in air combat" So whilst the F-15E might have proven more difficult than the others, it would appear from the text that it was still easy meat for the EF which never lost.

I don't remember if it was Gero or some other EF pilot, but I'm pretty sure an EF pilot talked about full 9 G capability with a full A2A load out (I assume that's 4x AIM120's + 4x IRIS-T's) and full internal fuel + centerline tank. Some websites claim +9/-3 G with full internal fuel + 2x AIM-120's, but no sources are listed. Would be interesting with some insight on this from the real experts (the SME's), shouldn't be a problem considering we'll know once the module is released anyway

It heavily infers that the EF was the top dog in said exercise(s), and that it had a relatively easy time defeating the opposition. I agree however that it doesn't specify the type of scenarios simulated, be it BVR or WVR etc.. hence how the F-15E was described as more tricky, no doubt because it's a force to be reckoned with in BVR engagements. That said we can safely assume that when it comes to BFM the EF has it in spades over the other aircraft mentioned, be it ITR, STR, climb rate or acceleration, the EF should handily beat them all in those areas.

Nowhere was it claimed that the F-15E beat the EF in BFM, it reads that that the F-15E was a tougher opponent than the MiG29, F/A-18 & F-16 during the exercise, which no doubt encompassed a lot of simulated BVR engagements where the Singaporian F-15E with its AESA radar is no slouch.

Ooh boy, here we go again...

Well just stating it without providing any source doesn't say much. What does he base it on? Again not saying he's wrong, but a source to confirm that it's not just hearsay would be nice. Also if this is known, then some limitations should also be known, i.e. when (at what weight) does 9 G become unavailable.

That is logical, the question is wether the FLCS automatically and dynamically restricts the pilot from exceeding these limits (ala F/A-18), or wether the pilot has to use presets like in for example the F-16 where CAT I, II & III are available.

At any rate we'll know once TG releases the EF, I'm just curious in regards to what I should expect FLCS wise. Not too keen about the F/A-18's quite handicapping dynamic limiter (~6.5 G w/ full internal + 4x4 AAM despite the official 7.5 G spec limit), but as I understand it (based on talking to some EF guys) the Typhoon is fully 9 G capable even with some very heavy loads, so I guess I don't have to worry about the FLCS limiting me like that in the Typhoon.

I think the Viper is probably the closest analog we have in DCS atm, albeit they will still be significantly different.

Maybe at 5,000 ft, where sustainable load factor is already at 7.1 G at 0.83 mach. Perhaps the glove vanes allowed up to 7.5 G above 1.0 mach. But without an EM diagram to show it, it's just guessing. It's also possible that it allowed up to 7.5 G instantaneous at higher altitude and speed when the wings were fully swept.

IIRC the vanes allowed 7.5 G sustained turns at very high speeds at altitude, i.e. it didn't have anything to do with control authority, just lift vs drag vs thrust.

Germans are known to be perfectionists, which tends to work against efficiency in some areas So expect a quality product, just don't expect it to arrive in record time

Thanks for the update IronMike, I'll be awaiting the FM update with excitement

That's great to hear, thanks for the update Spectre

Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know it doesn't use a system with presets? Also it would be interesting to know when 9 G is prohibited, i.e. is 9 G available with a 4x4 load out + full internal fuel etc ? According to some sources 9 G is available even with an external centerline tank.

I don't need monthly or even quarterly progress updates, but it would be great to know the devs atleast are alive and the project is still going ahead though So, devs, if you read this, give us a *peep*

Yes, the problem is when using buttons for it. Something that has been bug reported quite a few times by now. Should also be noted that this wasn't always the case, infact it started out working fine on release, but then a few patches later it was botched and using buttons for radar elevation control became completely broken due to serious oversensitivity; one quick tap on the button resulting in large changes in elevation, making it very difficult to control the radar.