tom_19d

Without getting into specific tactics, I would agree with Stingray that multiplayer is a great way to experience the F5. Lots of threads talk about some of the advantages the AI seem to have in DCS so I won't go there, but suffice to say I some of my most fun experiences in DCS have been in the F5 against human flown Mig21s. It is unpredictable, exciting, and rewarding in a way the AI can't compete with, IMO.

Glad to hear it!

I get where you are going with this Midnight but I think this is apples to oranges. I won't disagree that there can be differences between the altimeter settings at the fields SoCal TRACON covers (even for a single controller). But lets do some math. 29.78 (1008.5mb) to 29.99 (1015.6). Granted, I admit this is a large discrepancy (basically 200 feet) between indicated altitudes of airplanes that might only be 34.2 nm (ONT to VCV, 63 km) apart. However, consider that according to Ahrens' "Meteorology Today" 8th edition a storm in 1998 flipped over trucks and ripped the roofs off houses with a pressure gradient of only 32 mb per 500 km (1 mb per 16 km). Google pressure gradient force and you will find a set of slides from the University of California Irvine that associates tornadoes and hurricanes with pressure gradients of 1 mb per 6 km. Your example has a pressure gradient of 7.1 mb per 63 km, or 1 mb per 9 km. So your example requires something WELL beyond a normal Santa Ana wind and closer to a hurricane to be valid. (1/16 for 90+ knot winds, 1/9 for your example, 1/6 for a hurricane). Conversely, take Centennial airport in Denver and Denver International. They are 19 nm apart and have a field elevation difference of 451 feet. If Denver approach used QFE, aircraft taking off 19 nm apart would have a difference of 451 feet between their indicated altitudes at the moment of takeoff, every single time. Then mix in all the VFR traffic in the area (just like in SoCal) and imagine trying to deconflict that as a controller. Of course, if it is like Bbrz says and a single controller rarely works multiple fields, this isn't a problem, but in your example this isn't the case. Maybe I am missing something here or I have some math or meteorology wrong (please point it out if I do!) but I think Cake has it correct here. Sure there can be some slight variations with QNH across a sector but NOTHING like QFE would create.

Coming right off the rails here, AIM9-P5 functioning as advertised running 2.5 OB with all updates complied with...I know that doesn't sound too constructive without offering solutions but it sounds like you guys probably know all about jettison switch/external ord switch/power to the stations and all that...is it giving tone?

You nailed it with TACAN in this instance. A published TACAN approach is essentially a civil VOR/DME approach and can be conducted without INS/GPS or any of the other avionics you mentioned. (Be careful with a radar altimeter by the way, outside of very specific cases (CAT II and III ILSs that some of the airline guys here could tell you about) radar altimeters are never relied upon in IFR. They are only a situational awareness tool. Also remember the military has the ability to conduct PAR (Precision Approach Radar) approaches in which a controller talks the airplane down laterally and vertically to basically ILS minimums. Here are the 476th vFs airport pubs. If you open up either the Geogia or Vegas books you can find many TACAN approaches that are useful for the F5.

Hi Dave, that math looks great to me. And correct, doing it that way, when you land your altimeter should indicate field elevation, 1840 feet MSL in this case. You should be able to practice this in game by flying into the Russian fields where they give QDE and checking your work in good weather, I have tried it a few times myself since this thread started without issue, so if you have any problem in the sim let me know. PS: at least in the US we transistion to QNH as we descend through 18,000, but I don't think anyone in the sim will complain if you switch over at 15k haha. Plus different countries have different rules anyway.

PDF Here https://belsimtek.com/news/1643/

Hi Dave, please stop trying to do anything with hPa or anything that involves dividing anything by 27 or 30. You have the math correct in your above example. The problem with the scenario you pose is that if a field with an elevation of 1000 feet had a pressure setting that low it would be in one of the worst hurricanes ever recorded- that is the only way to get that low of a QNH setting. If you try your math again with a more reasonable QNH like 29.50 (QFE 28.50 in this example) you will see that you are doing it correct, you just chose an unrealistic QFE as a base point for that airport.

The OP never asked how to make the altimeter show zero when the aircraft is on the ground. He asked how to convert QFE to QNH, just look at the very title of the thread. "DAMN IT. I JUST DONT GET QFE 2 QNH SETTINGS in F-5E" Also from the first post... No cartography department so that means we have no plates? The 476th would disagree with you. 476 vFG Flight Info Pubs Their TACAN approaches and SIDs out of Vaziani are a riot. Plus you don't need charts, even on a server with no own ship on the F10 map you can always see field elevation of the field you will be landing at. To convert QFE to QNH there is an easy solution. Dolfo and I have both covered it. Field elevation in MSL of landing airport divided by 1000. Round this number to two decimal places, add it to QFE. Put this in the Kollsman window, you have QNH. Not simple? Move a decimal point three places left and add. I can do that in my head and I am terrible at mental math. Two people have answered the OP's question and shown the math using the scenario posed by his original post. Our work is visible, if it is wrong please explain how. I'm not trying to be contentious but much like 33-DFTC I am floored that this thread can possibly still be going on.

Thanks for linking to my post Dolfo, I was starting to think no one actually read it haha. Rep inbound for the PHAK reference. And +1 to not worrying about hPa in this case.

Imacken, I feel like this thread is slipping into a QNH v QFE discussion; while that is no doubt valuable and I am guilty of helping it go in that direction, it is missing the point that in the scenario posed by the OP QFE is not a valid solution, it is physically impossible to use. Regardless, I certainly didn't intend to talk you out of a technique that clearly works for you and many others and if that is how I came over, rather than just stating why I prefer QNH, my bad.

Yurgon, you do indeed have me on line 8, I was incorrect there. Never let it be said I am not gracious even in defeat haha. Safe flights!

Also for the OP, Dave, I think you are making things much harder on yourself than you need to by keeping your F10 map in metric. The only device on your aircraft to show your altitude indicates feet above mean sea level. The only device on your aircraft to measure distance for the purpose of radio navigate indicates nautical miles. The idea that metric units are somehow related to a JTAC/CAS call (outside of adjustments like drop 50, left 100, etc) is incorrect. The Army and the Marines use the same 9 line format to call for CAS. Line 3 of a fixed wing CAS request is the distance from the IP to the target in nautical miles. Line 4 is the target elevation, given in feet above mean sea level. No where in a 9 line fixed wing CAS call is a metric unit used. If you are just flying the F5 I can’t see any reason to use metric units on your F10 map at all, maybe that could help reduce some of these headaches.

Imakan, lots of people (me being one of them) have no use for QFE having spent whole lives/careers/ etc using QNH, as outside of Russia the entire rest of the world uses QNH. Additionally, as has been mentioned, all of the published instrument approaches for the Caucus and Nevada are written to use QNH. Finally, as has already been covered in this thread multiple times, most western aircraft aren’t made for QFE. For example, the F5 altimeter only rolls down to 28.10. This means, given ISA conditions, the F5 CAN NOT use QFE at fields above ~1800 MSL.

Okay right on. Poor assumption on my part, I was stating all altitudes in feet, pressures in inches of mercury as are used in the F5. My DCS map displays altitudes in feet. I don't know if it is possible to actually make it show meters, but maybe it is. Regardless, I doubt an F5 could ever use any runway at 4446 meters MSL. That is 14,500 feet, you would have to measure the F5's runway at that elevation in miles not feet. What airport are we talking about here? that might be a good start.

Are you referring to my method Dave with your questions about units?

Give this a shot. Find your field elevation using F10 maps, TERPS, whatever. Divide field elevation in feet MSL by 1000. Round to 2 decimals and add this number to the QFE you are given. Put it in the window. Unless I am wrong this should get you close enough for shooting a TACAN approach to mins in the F5. EDIT I never even read the first message of the thread but this works to with 10 feet in your above example. Field Elevation (4460) / 1000 = 4.46 QFE (25.23) + 4.46 = 29.69 (Within .01 in/mg AKA 10 feet of field elevation) Obviously there will be some variations here with large deviations away from ISA but nothing any of us mere mortals would be able to detect shooting said TACAN down to mins

Outstanding, happy to hear about the decision to drop own ship position off the map. On top of the improved realism, as an unintended consequence this could possibly make CGI controllers even more valuable.

+1 for Korea 1952!. It is a fantastic experience, just make sure you have Simple Radio running and read the briefing information.

Hi Dave, I haven’t read the book and I certainly don’t have a lot of knowledge on the F20 (other than that I sure would appreciate the extra 50% thrust or better that big GE 404 supposedly put out), but I just have always had the best luck in the F5 keeping my head on a swivel and out of the cockpit- at least in my experience by the time the radar can acquire a fighter sized target, if it is VMC they will be visible to the eye. I’m sure there are a few people that can play the radar like a piano and use it very effectively, but if I try I just turn into a victim for a MIG21 driver whilst I try to look at the little screen... Cheers

Not at all Sharkbait, if I came off as offended that was unintentional, I didn’t mean to sound harsh. Safe flying and good luck, I hope DCS provides you as much entertainment as it has me! Cheers

10 km away and you expect to see a piston single every time in every condition? That is over 5 nautical miles...you might get lucky now and then but even with a very timely traffic call from ATC most people won’t make that spot. One of the reasons DCS is great is because it gives a realistic depiction of just how difficult it is for one pilot to spot another in small aircraft moving at great speeds. In particular, fighting in jets without labels is humbling and it SHOULD be. There is a reason only a fraction of a percentage of the human population can do it for real...

Hopefully someone with more multiplayer experience than me will come in and back me up here...the issues with DCS AI have been addressed plenty on this forum. IMO the F5 really doesn’t shine air to air until you fight other humans. That said, the F5 is a day VFR fighter at heart. It is possible to craft carefully scripted scenarios with the ME that require the use of the radar, however, these have basically no resemblance to an actual F5 engagement. Without IFF or very specific GCI/AEW if you can’t visually identify the bogey you can’t shoot. The F5 doesnt have IFF and turning on your radar is a big flashing “here I am” for anything with an RWR. Join a good server, acquire visually (with POSITIVE assurance of aircraft type), and get into a fight. For me this is where the F5 is at its best; it seems like too many people want to get hung up on tertiary systems like the radar when the airframe itself and a good visual scan is all you need to be successful in a furball.

You are correct, range information will only be available with the radar on. However, I very rarely use the radar in conjunction with missiles because without an IFF, visual recognition is the only way to tell you are shooting at an enemy (highly scripted scenarios being the exception here). My experience over numerous online engagements is that if you are close enough to visually identify a bogey as a bandit and have a reasonable aspect angle, you are close enough for a missile shot. Turning on the radar just makes you more visible to RWR equipped aircraft.

Agreed with Comie- from what I have seen a lot of the server population depends on the time. When it is morning in the US/evening into night in Europe the Reds have a lot more players. At least generally... That being said, I haven't been able to see the server since last night, I'm not complaining, I just want to make sure it isn't just something on my end. Thanks all.