SinusoidDelta

Translated straight from the real flight manual for reference. Note the limitations through the transonic region (0.85 < M ≤1.25)

It sounds like you prefer playing checkers then ;)

That's engineering in a nutshell. The glass isn't half full, it's twice as large as it needs to be :lol: Regarding the video, we don't know what is 100% load is. 100% involves a safety margin. This is also whats called a quasi-static strength test. Static strength of an assembly does not correlate directly to dynamic strength in which loads are applied in less than 1 second and intertia comes into the equation. So when it comes to instantaneous G, it's anyone's guess what damage will happen to the airframe. Overload information in the manual gives you a ball park. FEA gives some direction but accuracy costs a lot of money. Beyond that, we don't have real life Su-27's at our disposal to validate the FEA so accuracy could never be confirmed. Empirical data could be sourced from accidents involving airframe failures but I don't know what has occurred or if that information would be public.

This is what I don't understand. It should be possible to over stress airframe on the eagle. just look at the example of the pilot who suffered from spatial disorientation. Instantaneous G was above 30 and sustained 15G for several seconds. The airframe was totally bent but was able to return to base.

The F-15C has endured 12G without failure in real life. I can't pull 12G's in the DCS F-15 with CAS on.

Thank you for that analysis. I spend very little time climbing. I win the lottery less often since 1.5. BVR is chess, not checkers. My number one goal is to survive and land my jet.

Kill is a kill. You didn't ask about the pilot's skill level :thumbup: I still feel like something has changed post 1.5, not necessarily kinematics, maybe more related to chaff effectiveness. I probably have the acmi's to prove it but don't feel like sorting through them. That was a random gif I saved a long time ago.

Yes. From before the open beta: (Huge gif warning)

Love it. Keep up the good work.

Interesting, I used to get 20nm+ kills with the AIM-120C, head on before DCS 1.5.

I'm not able to watch the track right now but that sounds like a reasonable zoom climb technique. You don't really need 3 bags or any really if you perform the climb properly. I usually pull 4G only to a ~55 degree climb angle. I've had the F-15 to just over 122 kft (no proof).

Back to the performance of the AIM-7, can someone comment on the rocket burn time? my understanding is that the motor is boost-sustain. 3 Seconds of boost and 12 second of sustain. Is this correct?

It's not really an artifact IMO. If what you've explained is accurate, it's a great example of software entropy and technical debt. And that's all I have to say about that.

To my knowledge, the nose wheel should not be moving with rudder input on take off unless somehow the front strut is compressed. Also, you shouldn't be doing 200 knots on the ground. My concern is with a crosswind. Even taxiing 30-40 knots, wind will push the jet left or right.

Do you have any plans to add more performance charts from the -220 Appendix B? I'd love to see level flight acceleration.

Nose gear steering should disengage when the nose gear strut extends. NWS should only engage when the front strut is compressed. This could be part of the issue if NWS isn't disengaging properly on take off or landing. Still, I don't understand why a crosswind component has a relatively large effect on the F-15C compared to other jets.

I'm not sure what LUA command line from FSF Ian is but DCS Witchcraft is/was a lua debug console for DCS. I don't know if it still works: https://github.com/jboecker/dcs-witchcraft

Time for tracks! Post em if you got em! :thumbup:

The launching jet was going Mach 1.4, the target jet is going .8 Mach, and the launch was from 2.4 miles cold. Delta V, or lack there of, is one of the problems. Even when the missile tracks it can't hit its target. Which is more surprising? An ER missing a 4.1 nm rear aspect shot with both aircraft traveling the same speed, or a sparrow missing a rear aspect shot at 2.4 miles with a huge kinematic advantage?

I've noticed this when there is wind. I was having difficulty taxiing straight under 50 knots. On take off the jet really starts to hunt left and right. Anyone else experience this?

I have acmi's of sparrows doing far worse.

Could you provide some instructions on how to use the API? I followed the readme but I'm not really sure if I'm launching it correctly.

IMHO a curved 34" 21:9 does give a sense of immersion. The monitor is curved in 3 dimensions. Until VR tech offers an optimal FOV and a solution for not being able to see my own hands, I prefer the monitor.

That's what I was thinking....especially when they're going Mach 1.2 on the deck.