TheSkipjack95

I did some DACT in the C101 once (against a 190, but that was because it was spontaneous rather than a planned exercise), with a buddy in the backseat, and let me tell you, having a second pair of eyes telling you where the enemy is is really bloody handy. I'm sure there are plenty of other duties the rear seat can perform (dealing with navigation, especially in low level dead reckoning,.....) other than being a passive observer.

Quick suggestion/question. did the C101 ever carry LGBs with any of its operators ? If the DCS F-5 can carry and drop GBU-12s, the C101 should technically be able to as well, shouldn't it ? That would increase it's usefulness considerably. Also, I seem to remember a photo pod being mentioned as a potential loadout way back before the update. Is that still on the cards ? Since Heatblur is developing the TARPS recce pod for the Tomcat, I assume DCS as a whole is trying to implement that type of mission.

Hi, Really enjoying the C101 so far, but there's one thing I'd like to request. The tarsyn panel below the HSI and behind the stick has a knob to set latitude, which I believe helps in getting the correct heading reading all across the board (provided the HSI itself is set properly), right ? And the mark for setting the latitude seems to be on the bottom of the dial (small white triangle). If that is indeed the mark one needs to align the current latitude with, it can't be read accurately, even by moving the camera to impossible angles. In which case, could the tooltip read out the current latitude setting ? TIA

Does the target need to be a unit or does it target static objects as well? I set up three cargo ships in my mission, and despite trying multiple times all I get is the missile flying true for most of the way, and then suddenly pitch up to 1k ft approx, and then suicide dive back down into the sea. Otherwise im impressed with its terrain following. Even better than the rb15f :D

Hi, I bought a crew pack for the F-14 on the Heatblur store, and successfully redeemed the coupons on the dcs site, but I can't see a trace of the module on my account page or in the module manager. Is there a place I can see the F14? TIA

As the title suggests, the Harrier has a tendency to roll towards the newly empty station when a weapon is released, requiring retrimming every time a weapon is fired. What's the official stance on that? Accurate? Still WIP? The existence of a roll moment seems logical, but it seems a bit excessive and it's not noticeable to that extent in any of the other DCS aircraft.

So no twin seater ? :'( I think it'd have some logic to have one, to serve as conversion trainer for less experienced friends or virtual squadrons. Doing some instruction myself, having to fly formation on a student and teach him/her at the same time is exhausting.

If you could share some screenshots whenever possible that'd be grand :D I can't wait for the F1. It's still EE/BE right ?

The trick to dogfight in the MiG 21 is : don't. In all seriousness, turning in the MiG won't help you at all against anything that isn't a sitting duck. I chatted with some hardcore fishbed guys, and I got the same advice. If you look at how the Vietnamese employed them, it's the same. Guerilla tactics. Jump on your prey, blast it out of the sky and get out.

Generally 3 bladed props allow to better output the engine power, ie give more thrust, which is why I tested climb rate ( at the same speed I would expect a higher VSI reading ). However, they are draggier, ( more surface area bc of the third blade ) so I expect a lower cruise speed. There's plenty of info on the web. I don't know how all of this applies to the yak specifically, but I would assume that the military trainers use the two bladed prop because aerobatics aren't the primary use, but the privately owned aerobatic ones use the three bladed props because it's always nice to have some energy. The question remains : is there supposed to be a difference in DCS, or is it purely cosmetic/no difference because of the design.

Hello, Quick question. I ran performance tests with both props to see if having a third blade made a difference. Parameters tested : Takeoff distance, Initial climb, cruise. From what I gather I should see better performance in the climb, but a loss of cruise speed. However all measurements were the same between the propellers. (200m, 5-6m/s, 270km/h) Are the differences not yet implemented/purely cosmetic/non existant in the Yak52 ?

@Eldur I think I found it. I looked into the manual on avialogs, the power settings are indicated with regards to ambient pressure, so I assume the russian B is for "Bapo" = "Baro". PS : I can't seem to drop the rpm down to low enough rpms for the cruise settings. Off the top of my head I think it only drops to 80% rpm.

Yeah I noticed that too. I mean on regular takeoffs. Line up, trim to -2, flaps to stol, sto stop to 60, slam that throttle forwads and rotate the nozzles at NRAS. Even with early rotation of the nozzles, all I get is increased nose down moment as the speed increases. I suspect I'm doing something wrong with my config, but -2 trim as per the manual just does not work for me.

According to both the navair manual, the FSG manual and the pocket guide, the takeoff trim is supposed to be set at -2° ( that's 2° nose down, for clarity ). However, setting the trim to that ( with corresponding indication on both MPCD page and engine panel on the right side ), results in excessive nose down moment during takeoff, from clean config to moderate load. It needs further testing, but has anyone else encountered that ? I seem to recall it working previously but now it only makes for dangerous takeoffs. What am I missing ?

I have a question regarding control forces. I know it's a very complicated issue, but there are multiple aircraft in DCS, most notably the Spitfire, which when left without any control axes tweaking, are extremely touchy on the controls and even unstable in some cases. The 109 has seen the implementation of a control deflection limitation with speed, so as to stiffen the response and give it a very comfortable weight. My question then is : Is that "issue" also considered in the case of the Yak-52 ? My understanding is that it's DCS' current physics research airframe.

It's not that I don't like em, but in the L-39 all the documentation is in metric, like all the russian planes. And in France, gliders are in metric too ;)

100km/h Source : I fly gliders As for the anhedral, it is to reduce "pendulum effect" and decrease stability, ie make the plane more maneuverable. You should get a bit of rolling motion with yaw even at near zero forward speed because you get angular airspeed, and as such the wing will create some lift anyway, pushing it upwards and creating roll.

Gaining back energy in the F-5 is hard labour, so keeping it is most important. Using full burner and 15 AoA ( as marked by the white range on the AoA gauge ) yields a turn with no noticeable loss of airspeed. I find that it's easier to deny plane of motion than it is to fight with turn rate against AI. When the AI inevitably goes high to try and evade, refusing to follow and making a flatter turn should still keep you in a relatively good position and maybe give a firing window. You can also sucker the AI into rolling scissors, by mostly using rudder in your rolls to slow down and try to get the bandit in front. Worked for me even against a flanker, although I couldn't get a good firing solution after that.

The Pegasus is an *extremely* powerful engine. From reading various accounts, not getting surprised by the power and acceleration of it takes getting used to. The manual ( NATOPS ) also states that if at idle, a high taxi speed is attained, using the nozzles to slow down is useful. So with a light load, the added airflow of flight speed and at the slow speeds of the C130, the harrier being touchy on the power doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Personally I've never had major issues with the power during refuels in the harrier specifically. Running the C130 at 270 ish indicated at 8000 is fine enough for both airframes, but it's true that having a C-135FR or KC-135BDA would be more comfortable.

Vade retro avec tes unités impériales ! :P

Silly fancy control system creating more problems than it's solving :P K.I.S.S

This will need further testing then. I read from a few people that curves were usually a bad idea in helicopters because with trim you'd change the cyclic position to a point along that curve, yielding a different response. However in the Gazele I hardly ever need to trim, so I'm not sure if the SAS does it automatically or what.

My fourth actually :D , I'm used to the trucks the Huey and Hip are, the Gazelle is so much more nervous for me, I feel like I'm constantly balancing on a pin. :joystick: I know the Gazelle is supposed to be this light and maneuverable little thing, but I can't seem to get used to it. Should I murder my saturation even more ?

Could be, since you would just be waiting for the mechanical side to warm up.

For the Harrier, there's a Sea INS ( SINS ) cable you need to plug in to be able to align in SEA mode. I just don't know how it works, I assume it must be feeding the ship's position into both N and E lanes of the INS to feed the correction loops while the gryos warm and spin up. If you're really bored I can suggest watching this series of vids on INS systems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZBgRN_jUSo