Alfredson007

Okay thank you yo-yo.

Well, it's not a controller issue i can assure you. I have very accurate hall effect stick. I admit that the mustang without curves requires very accurate joystick, i had very hard time to perform minimum speed loops on my old joystick (logitech 3d). Also, especially the corner speed test i made could be done with keyboard... it's all about quick deflection, nothing else. I can fly the plane good. I have the P51, have had it for years from its early release, but eversince the TF51 came, i've preffered that, it's lighter, doesn't stall quite that easily (while stalls easily too) and the cockpit has great all round visibility, lovely plane to do aerobatics. I've never liked DCS as WW2 simulator due to georgia map etc, usually played IL2's. What comes to Yo-Yo's answer. I have no idea what he is talking about. We are talking mach .3 to .4 speed here or smthng, so does so low mach really count? Dunno. Liked to hear more on that...

Hello. I am here to ask a simple question that bugs me a bit. The P51 is very easy to G-stall. Very easy in fact. Now, i understand this is fast plane with laminar wing that is going to stall more easier than some other models etc but still, i actually did a little test. I AM NOT here to say things are necessarily wrong. I am here to ask for an explanation, or filing a bug if there is one. This test was done with guns, ammo, 40-45% of fuel, otherwise clean, no flaps, no rockets etc. near sea level. I stall the airplane. It buffets around 100mph, stalls a little below. Next i will get me some speed, around 300mph or so, i do a quick (but not violently yank) pull to the stick, i stall, my accelerometer show a high mark of ~5.5G, my speed at the beginning of the stall was around 270mph. But MATH says, that if airplane stalls at 100mph (ours actually stalled in a bit less speed), at the stall speed for 5.5G should be around 235mph. I was WAY above 235mph all the time. Now i do understand, that airspeed doesn't stall airfoils, angle of attack does, but usually there are simple formulas to calculate G-stall speeds. IIRC, the maneuvering speed for mustang (depending on weight) is around 270-280mph, or so, so yanking stick aft beyond this speed you should be risking of having 8G+, thus endangering the airframe, rather than stall. Quickly yanking the stick at 300mph results accelerated stall and less than 7Gs, for the plane's gauge atleast. Now, can somebody explain me this because this bugs me a bit. Thanks!

Mig 21 is the best. It looks great sounds great and is challenging. I prefer simple planes, the mig felt complex at first but it really is not that complex. Pulling g forces with mig just feels great but the most addictive feature is the landing. It is a challenge but in a right way. I still feel great after perfect crosswind landing. The second favourite is the tf51 mustang. It is a nice stick and rudder plane for aerobatics. I find it more challenging in the air than the mig. Those are the planes i take seriously. I fool around sometimes with su27, f15 and sabre but atm they are disabled because i just do not fly them atm. Sabre looks great and has a bit similar feel as the mustang but i prefer the mustang which is complete opposite tp the mig while sabre is something between.

Do anyone have any idea how classified Hornet systems are these days? Are they completely de-classified or are there still some things that cannot be accurately simulated? I usually prefer older planes but Hornet is the only study level complex modern jet i am really interested in.

In another platforms i have used to have options. To choose between HSI and traditional VOR for example. If someone likes to use 100% russian systems, fine, and somebody who wants to use, say, realistic vor beacons in nevada, he could to it too. what's wrong with that? Why people thinks i am demanding exclusive "for me only" modification to the game? I asked, is anyone with me, is there more people who wish for this too.

DCS planes generally requires(benefits) having lots of physical buttons. HOTAS system such as X-55 saitek etc are best for these naturally, but they are expensive and require lots of desk space and especially the throttle unit may be prone to move if not screwed in. If you feel you can handle the planes pretty well with the current saitek stick, i suggest you familirize yourself to the game with it with limited shooting, then you can get a better picture what kind of stick / throttle unit you want. If you decide to go with low budget route, i'd recommend either Logitech 3D pro or Thrustmaster T16000M. L3D has older, less precise traditional potentiometer-system, the t16000m has more modern hall-effect sensors that in theory last longer and are superaccurate, i have had both sticks and it really makes the difference. Logitech 3D has better layout and more buttons in the stick part, and a bit more ergonomic, but lacks the accuracy and the smoothness of t16000m. Both are good sticks and should not be too expensive. I prefer the T16000m but the L3D has its benefits. Device for looking around as said before is called TrackIR. I have it, but you do not need to horry with this one especially with Jet Fighters in mind. It's useful but it's most helpful with WW2 style fighting where distances are shorter etc. It also requires a little time to getting used to. In the end it is very good add to flight simming, especially in combat sims, but you can practice without it easily. You can look with mouse and with hat in DCS, both works pretty well too.

Okay you all got my interest, and thanks for Ramsay for his image, that helped alot. It seems to have the RMI needle with HSI needle, always pointing toward the station also the "which is tail and which is head" was a bit baffling, also it seems these needles have switched over time in updates? ALSO it helps alot when you remember to turn ARK/RSBN to latter. So yeah, it's pretty straight forward. i'd still prefer VOR/ILS but i totally understand if leatherneck is not going to do it (or modding it would be too huge job) Thanks and sorry.

What are you trying to say? That it's as unrealistic to have ILS/VOR gauges in Mig-21 as Amraam missiles? No, because, for example, Finnish Air Forces immediately modified their Mig21bis's to include western ADI and HSI. Talking about realism. How realistic it is to navigate with RSBN beacons in Nevada US of A? :\

Well not for _me_ alone obviosly, i just threw an option to air if people would want western avionics as i've seen in many real world plane.

Yes it's easy to dial in the channel and turn the radial, it is the intercepting the radial that gets me. How do i know how to get to the radial and how to know i am on the radial. Yeah i know all this is in the manuals and in the youtube but the problem is i am not very interested in learning rsbn... i know VOR/ADF/ILS etc though... It's a not a big deal. Thanks for your help though.

I admit. I am too lazy and unmotivated to learn the RSBN etc needles. I briefly tried them, but the needle seems to be quite different from VOR/HSI. What i would LOVE to see would be a western attitude indicator, maybe ft-altimeter and definetaly western ILS/VOR system with radio's that are tuneable with frequencies. Anyone with me?

Okay that's good to know. Glad it is that way, so it probably will be fixed and i can enjoy IR missile dogfights more :)

First of all. I really love this module. Everything i've read about Mig-21 from real manuals etc... this really feels spot on! (Not sure about the climb performance 10km and up though... and add some roll on stalls..!) Anyway back to business. I have wondered, i have 2v2 mig-21 situation, all planes start head to head, same altitude, 6-7nm distance, everyplane has same weapons, guns and IR missiles. Now what bugs me, that the AI can lock a IR missile to me in head to head situation, but i have tried and tried, but i cannot. It doesn't matter do i have low power or reheat - they always do it. Am i doing something wrong or is the AI using the IR missiles "a tad too well"? I hope it's a bug, because i hope real IR missiles of that era would only lock from rear hemisphere, making dogfighting more interesting) Anyway. Great module. Love it.

Yes, alright, thanks for that =) BTW i have tried maneuverability at high altitudes (30000ft+) in DCS modules, with F86F sabre most recently. In my tests, all that makes maneuvering more difficult at an altitude seems to be the engine power. At high altitude and in 10000ft i can do similar 3-4G turn, if the initial speed is same (little above 200 knots), but the fact that i can add air speed more easily lower down increases my over all maneuverability. Not sure how is this right or wrong, but to me it seems that aerodynamically the plane is as maneuverable in 32000ft as in 10000ft. (quick test).

Let's first make sure we are talking about same things. Critical AoA = the point where stall occurs, or, it's the point just before stall. Right? Now, suppose our plane stalls at 17 degrees at sealevel, and is reduced in thinner air to, just throwing numbers here, 15 degrees, wouldn't that give you higher IAS stall speed. (which was the whole point of this thread)? Let's exaggerate: If the stall speed would be reduced so much i could only add 1 degree of AoA at cruising speed, then i would stall almost immediately below cruise speed? but if, on the another hand at SL i could add +20 degree of AoA, that would give me more margin speedwise ? EDIT: About the low speed buffet: "The low-speed buffet boundary is defined by the occurrence of buffet due to high-lift-induced boundary layer flow separation. As such, it can be associated with Mach Number effects, but the principal effector is Reynolds Number" I am not even TRYING to understand "reynolds number" at this point, but i think that also hints that while scientifically it is not mach-buffet, this issue is something that would not happen with lower mach-speeds, and is, in a way, mach related? That would explain the simplified "low speed mach buffet" explanation for pilots (not for fluid dynamics -students) for simple understanding. .. at 9:08 "the result is higher mach number over the upper surface of the wing" .. there it is again.. the damned MACH number! :-D

Thanks for your answer again! I read the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook's Transition to Jets -section about these issues, and i will now quote: "There are also occasions when the buffet can be experienced at much slower speeds know as "low speed Mach buffet."." Then it says that too slow speed + altitude is causing high angle of attack. I quote some more: "This very high angle of attack would have the same effect of increasing airflow over the upper surface of the wing to the point that all of the same effects of the shock waves and buffet would occur as in the high speed buffet situation "The higher the airplane flies, the thinner the air and the greater the angle of attack required to produce the lift needed". Well this clearly says it actually IS mach buffetting. And is exactly the same effect, but initiated by a different reason (high aoa @ low airspeed vs just high airplane's mach)(?). So, i still think that both buffets are caused by mach-issues. This would still explain why some airplanes (slow ones) do not suffer these issues, like u2, which stall speed is raised only by a few knots at 75000(!) ft for example. But let's forget mach-issues for a while, because our beautiful supersonic aircrafts do not suffer any mach issues. If thinner air requires more aoa as you and the handbook stated, then ALL planes should stall at lower IAS speed at altitude, because critical aoa is reached at earlier point (or speed.)? UNLESS this is infact only true due to some kind of "mach-induced flow separation due to wing that can't handle these issues (subsonic wing)." Meaning, this would after all be true only in high speed subsonic jets, not in supersonic jets, not in WW2 spitfires, or turbo charged cessnas. But if all planes suffer this aoa issue, then our fighers in DCS too, should stall at higher IAS if there are limited angle of attack -range compared to low altitudes? Now, maybe i am wrong again or seeing things in a twisted angle, feel free to correct :)

At first i didn't get this but now i think i got it. The low speed buffet is actually low speed mach buffet, while we are flying slower than cruise speed with our SUBsonic aircraft, with high alpha, the air over the wing starts to go closer to mach 1, causing mach tuck, as in high speed mach buffet. So, supersonic wing can handle all kinds of mach-issues, so the mach buffets won't happen at any stage of course (probably). At first it was hard me to realize that mach would be again a problem, even when the speed gets lower. I hope i am right this time, because now i actually understand q corner! :smartass: thanks

No, i am comparing Mig-21 to Mig-21, and Su27 to Su27, and F-15 to F-15 at different altitudes. Yeah, that thread was started by me actually :-). I have studied this issue a bit now and it still is a bit odd, i totally understand the subsonic wing's high speed buffet margin, but not totally a low speed margin. Wikipedia generally says that IAS stall speed stays generally unchanged, but the charts clearly states otherwise. It certainly stays unchanged at low speed aircrafts, because the air compressibility comes into play at mach 0.3 and above. That probably is the reason why U2 has almost constant IAS stall speed as seen here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/CoffinCornerU2.png If you watch that closely, you will notice that the IAS stall speed actually rises, but very little. Here we have the stall margins for a Dc10: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10225958/cleanConfig_stallBoundary.png Now we have a big difference. Now, i don't know how supersonic wing behaves differently from transsonic/subsonic, but that's what i want to know. I'd like to see similar graphs about any supersonic fighter, but haven't found any yet :\ ...

As many of you know, the common passenger plane stalls at higher IAS at high altitude, due to higher mach number that leads to air compressibility issues or something. Since our super sonic fighter jets stall at pretty high speeds too and fly even higher, i'd presume they would also stall at considerably higher IAS at very high altitudes than at sea level. I have three supersonic planes for DCS, the F15, Su27 and Mig-21. F15 and Su27 stall at same speed at high altitude (40000ft+) than at 6500ft, but the Mig-21 might show somewhat slower stall speeds at low altitude, 20-30kmh or so? I know the FC3 models are not study level sims but they use PFM so... for comparison, according to charts, the DC10 will stall almost 40kts higher IAS at 40000ft compared to 15000ft at clean config (150kts -> 190kts or so). So how do the real world fighters perform at high altitude? Is the DCS modules realistic on this? If not, i'd hope it would be fixed since this would greatly limit high altitude maneuvers more realistic. Thanks for comments!

Okay thanks! I think the ARU isn't playing a huge role though, since when i put it on manual, it doesn't do anything dramatic, compared to when i disengage the "traction control" in Su27 for example. Or is the Leatherneck's model still incomplete in this sense?

.. or what ever it would be called. What i am trying to ask, is there any "filtering" or "automatization" or "fly-by-wireism" in mig-21, or is it just stick and rudder? What about the ARU? What does it actually do? Thanks. Still having fun in my 21!

Okay, kind of makes sense, thank you. So far i don't mind this, but if for some reason i'd like not to have openbeta anymore, is there an easy way to do this, or do i need to completely install the non-beta version from the scratch?

Hi all. So the 1.5 was officially released, i however have, of course, had the open beta 1.5 eversince it was released. Now i'd like to know, do i still get newer beta updates than the stable 1.5 would get? Will my openbeta -1.5 update anymore or do i have to change to "proper" 1.5? or does my "openbeta" DCS continue life as a 1.5 stable eventhough the shortcuts and folder will have "openbeta" mark on them. Thanks!

Thanks for your answer! I tried to find some details on the self-destruction mechanism but could not find any though :\