Hummingbird

@Cobra847 Apologies for the necromancing, but is it still possible we could get DFCS for the -B in the future?

Main reason I'd want the F-14D would be for: 1. Digital flight control system (DFCS) for near carefree handling (no more need to manually apply rudder for roll at high AoA , FCS does that for you etc) 2. SparrowHawk HUD On the DFCS: "The Navy decided to incorporate the GEC Marconi Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) into all F-14 aircraft to significantly improve flight safety. The system is designed to protect aviators against unrecoverable flat spins and carrier landing mishaps. DFCS also incorporates a lateral stick-to-rudder interconnect designed to improve less than desirable flying qualities in the powered approach configuration. Pilots agree that with the DFCS the Tomcat is more maneuverable and has crisp response to pilot control inputs. The new system should improve performance and safety during carrier landings. This modification affects 211 active duty and 16 reserve F-14 aircraft. The Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) demonstrated that DFCS drastically decreases the chance of entering out-of-control flight and improves the F-14's ability to recover, if a spin is entered. Departure from controlled flight has been a primary causal factor in 35 F-14 mishaps. Also significant is its ability to improve carrier approach line-up control addressing a problem often cited as a contributing factor in carrier landing mishaps. The incorporation of DFCS increases safety, both during "edge-of-the-envelope" maneuvering flight and carrier landings. The new the Digital Flight Control System [DFCS] provides enhanced maneuverability for the F-14. The DFCS control panel replaces the current AFCS panel in the front cockpit, the analog system in use since the aircraft's inception. It contains the modified SAS switches, and also displays maintenance codes for system failures identified during IBIT and in flight. The DFCS system has lived up to its promise of enhanced controllability and performance in the high AOA regimes and in the landing configuration. However, the structural issue raised by the enhanced roll rates achievable with the DFCS is a potential factor affecting the crucial problem of F-14 fatigue life."

Looking forward to the update, however I wonder what these entail specifically?: Adjusted subsonic airframe drag per SME comments Refering how fast the aircraft loses speed without thrust or? Adjusted F110 AB thrust below mach 0.7 The -B does feel a tiny bit low on thrust below 0.7 mach, so I'm wondering if it's been increased a bit?

The antenna elevation and depression sensitivity is sadly still waay to high for anyone using buttons to control it. ED still haven't fixed this since reported a year ago. Really frustrating

Keep in mind that they were posted before the rule even existed.

Don't worry the above doesn't fall under that, as it's freely available via the link and is very unspecific.

The BFM/ACM Clinic is proud to present the Pilot X vs The World competition, where a single chosen pilot will be facing a world team of 10 pilots in 1v2 and 1v1 dogfights. The comp will be held on saturdays every two weeks and will be commented on by 132nd.LowBlow as well as guest commentators & former USAF F-15C fighter pilots Guido & Slick. Rules and Conditions are explained in the following illustration: Registration for the competition happens at our Discord: https://discord.gg/N9SxKu4ntg Competition starts on saturday Nov 7th 2020 at 20:00 Zulu. Best regards LB, HB & SB

Do the Thunderbirds even wear a G-suit?

The chart is also quite unspecific in that it says nothing about weight, load out or altitude.

The Viper itself is underperforming in terms of ITR & STR, there's no way around this, we have the real life EM diagrams to confirm this. The whimpy pilot model just adds insult to injury by making the pilot incapable of sustaining 9 G any better than when in an aircraft without a reclined seat + positive pressure oxygen mask. As has been mentioned many a time before, the USAF conducted lots of tests on the G resistance of the average pilots: https://www.sto.nato.int/publication...ARD-AG-322.pdf Excerpt: "The maximum G level obtainable using the anti-G suit and AGSM has never been systematically measured in the laboratry.: The maximum G level duration attempted in an upright seat usng only an anti-G suit and AGSM was 9G for 45 seconds which was attained by 9 of 14 subjects in a study conducted at USAFSAM in 1972 " https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e10...6e83c862ba.pdf Excerpt: "When the F-16-configured seat is used, the training profiles are set 1 G higher than they are when the conventional fighter aircraft seat (13* seatback angle, normal rudder pedal position) is used. The higher-G profiles are used with the F-16 seat because pilots report a 1- to 2-G subjective improvement in G tolerance in the F-16 as compared to other fighter aircraft, and because data obtained during centrifuge training when both types of seat were used revealed at least 0.8 G greater tolerances in the F- 16-configured seat than in the conventional seat" https://link.springer.com/content/pd...3030-8%2F1.pdf Excerpt: "Tolerance. Average aircrew relaxed G tolerance in the F-16 seat is about 5.2 G (about .5 to .75 G less in aircraft without a reclined seat); the G suit can add another 1 G, and a good AOSM can add another 3.5 G or more of tolerance. When these are totaled, one can see that 9 G is a big challenge for most aircrew; there is little or no safety margin" So based on the litterature available, an F-16 pilot should on average be able to sustain about 0.8 G more than for example an F-15, F-14 or F/A-18 pilot, and that's only counting the effect of the reclined seat and ignoring the effect of the positive pressure oxygen mask. Adding in the latter and it's entirely possible that Viper pilots in general have a 1 G or greater advantage in tolerance as mentioned in excerpt no.2.

[uSER=165710]Dash@TrueGrit[/uSER] Looking great! Gib soon please! :D Tell me about it :cry:

ED probably have more data on the F/A-18 than we have, but are unable to share it. The obvious problem with this is that checking wether they followed what'ever data they have with precision isn't possible for us, hence we're forced to accept how the F/A18 currently performs and hope they got it right. We do however know that the possibility of them getting it wrong in certain areas is there, and we know this since there are inconsistencies with some of their other aircraft modules where we CAN check for inconsistencies, like for example the F-16 where sustained & instantaneous turn performance is lacking compared with the available RL EM diagrams.

Sweeping the wings back reduces the wing aspect ratio, which in turns increases the lift induced drag (Cdi) and thus L/D ratio.

Damn! Can't wait!

No we very much do have complete sets of EM charts for several of the fighters ingame, many of which are still currently in service (F-16, F-15, F-4 etc.), their entire performance manuals no less. The reason(s) the EF's EM charts aren't available can be many, it's a relatively new airframe for one, and second every nation/company doesn't treat these things the same. However there is little reason to keep the kinematic performance secret for aircraft that have been in service for 20 or more years and are sold internationally, which is why we have so many performance manuals available for aircraft older than that. (F-22 is a special case, being sold to no'one else)

You'd be surprised by how accurately the other side can predict the kinematic performance of an opposing side's airframe design. Infact it's the main reason EM charts are at all publically available for many of the jets now in service, because it's widely known you can't really keep that stuff truly secret - and it has been like this for a while. Besides revealing kinematic performance doesn’t reveal how said airframe was constructed or what materials were used to achieve the listed weight or power figures. As such the type of performance that is truly secret is that of the weapons & sensor systems, and as such we naturally don't have any accurate figures for this in the public, and that goes for a lot of stuff that aint even in service anymore and hasn't been for a while as well - because this is the information the other side can't accurately predict and hence are very keen to acquire. Thus I certainly trust TG are going to be giving us a very accurately flying Eurofighter, as I cannot see any reason for them not to.

I don't see any reason why they couldn't make the kinematic performance of the aircraft almost exactly match the real thing, and I don't think Eurofighter GmbH would mind it either, as in this day and age outside analysts can very accurately predict this anyway. (You can be very sure that opposing sides have long since digitally reproduced either sides aircraft and CFD analysed the bejesus out of them) Furthermore the combat performance of modern day fighters is much more closely tied to their weapons & sensor systems, and hence THAT I would certainly expect not to be fully simulated, and for sure undermodelled. But maneuvering/kinematic performance, I don't see a reason it would be problematic for a developer to match this, as any potential enemy would get very little out of it vs what they've already quite accurately predicted.

I dunno, to me the Gripen would fit perfectly into our sim, being capable in most roles. Doesn't hurt that I've always been fascinated with the kit of my Nortern brothers ofcourse, and really impressed by their keeping pace with the much bigger countries/powers out there. The STOL capability of the Gripen is also something I think many would find extremely fun to play with. Finally, since I do a lot of BFM I am kind of biased towards having more of these agile fighters ingame :)

Interesting. Well I hope SAAB sees the light and allow them to do it same as Eurofighter GmbH allow TG to do the EF.

Seeing as we're soon to be getting the EF-2000 in DCS, would the JAS-39C not also be possible? And what better developer to take on this task than Heatblur, considering it's experience developing the AJS-37?

Nice one, thank you Icemaker!

Have to agree, this was not a change for the better. The old one was a lot easier on the eyes. Worst part though is that you can't check for new responses without having to enter the subforums themselves.

Yeah, I've been in trouble quite a few times now because of it, as it's not easy to determine what is allowed and what isn't. I've posted several such charts one day (that are still left standing), only to get warned and my post removed the next for something similar. So to be safe I'd just refrain from posting any charts tbh, that's the conclusion I've come to atleast.

Well firstly we rely on honesty and good sportsmanship, if that doesn't work then we're helped by the fact that abuse of the paddle is incredibly obvious. In our competitions however we go a step further and have a guy monitor the aircraft, looking for large overshoots in G that are sustained. Brief spikes in G I don't call as a breach of rules, since they have no effect on the fight anyway and could easily be due to a lot of other technical reasons.

Gavagai, be careful posting charts like that, remember rule 1.16.