captain_dalan

Aye, no argue from me there. And i would pay that again for an early F-14A and <gasp> an F-14D that i wouldn't even fly as it's too modern for my liking!

Welcome aboard @Silhou! A short side by side comparison between disabled and enabled alternate flutter mode. No idea which is the "realistic" one, but i prefer the alternate (checking the box in the options) as i find it more "talkative". Also, noticed the difference in amplitude based on airspeed and acceleration. Finally, might as well make a bug report, as during the last mission launch an old friend of hours, DCS freeze on mission startup seems to be back!

Jesus Christ man! I understand the need for perfection, but do we really need that much detail? (said the man that flies detailed FM tests after every update)

The F-15E is by no means substitute for any A-A Eagle AFAIK. One look at the performance charts states what we already know from the basic specs and the visuals. The added weight, the different aerodynamics and the different engines result in performance that is so different from both the A and C variants, that it's essentially a different plane. I can't say about the avionics, but the cockpit seems different enough to me as well. E is a Mudhen after all and no amount of pretend or make-belief will ever change that, which is the prime reason i won't be getting it. Now if someone made an early A or a mature C..... that would be a different story all together.

Those are not very good metrics for assessing aircraft performance. For starters, aside from few YouTubers, very few people fly with their fuel flow set to off. So any comparison should start with start and end fuel points in mind, and that will be mission related. Even BFM/ACM training sorties have bingo and joker states in mind. And then there is wing loading which can be very deceptive in its own right as: 1. it almost never includes the total lifting surface available to a plane. 2. the entirety of the lifting surface isn't always available across all possible angle of attack values and these depend greatly on parts of the envelope explored during a fight. 3. it NEVER includes aerodynamic properties of the airfoil, which is to be honest IMO its greatest flaw. Look no further then planes with "tiny" wings and "heavy" wing loading (comparatively) that seem to turn quite well in their own right, both in rate and in radius. Thrust to weight..... again, way too simplistic, and with static thrust values (that are usually what engine specifications quote) are usually completely useless. Say, a plane has TWR of 0.7/1 with two engines, each of which has individual TWR of 8/1. Are the engines themselves more maneuverable then the plane they are attached to? Is a 2x4 with a rocket duct-taped to it the best BFM machine in the world?

As far as modifying the mission, if it's not too much to ask, would you mind adding the F-14A to the list of flyable planes? I've done that myself for my local copy, but it would sure be nice to have an "official" version. And many thanks for the best CASE I trainer around, i owe you much for improving my grades!

That's why i try to distinguish between DCS burble and F-14 burble What about my original question? EDIT: ....hmmm, maybe they plan to something similar like the burble as in turn it on when flying some planes, off for others?

Yep, but i was referring to the checkbox As in, is it optional or not (DCS burble is) ?

And the checkbox means its optional? Like DCS burble is?

I think the most important change is actually a part of the envelope not often used by many DCS F-14 users, that's between 400-480 knots, and when in the right conditions you can have a very favorable energy retention and recovery for very small sacrifice in turn rate or gains in altitude.

This is what i've read as well. As for preliminary flight model testing......i'm impressed! Still getting used to the new stick, so took me a bit longer then what i would have wanted, but here it is. And what can i say, HB outdid themselves. The only significant difference i found between the charts and the current F-14A FM is the region at the mach 1 number, or 675 knots to be exact. It might be a DCS thing, or it might be charts flaw, but at this point instead of the 5g expected available, i could only do 3.4-3.5. Aside from that...... it's extremely close! It's either inside 0.1 g of expected, or inside 10 knots of expected, which is IMPRESSIVE to say the least. Not to mention that the charts may not be all that precise to begin with. Needless to say, i'm looking forward to the B adjustments as well. Configuration, 4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows, no tanks, 53873lbs gross weight. Fuel burn disabled to maintain constant parameters. This of course also needs crosschecking with linear accelerations, but i hope someone else can do it! Also, other altitudes like 5000ft, 10000ft, 25000ft and especially 35000ft need to be checked. And of course, other loads, like 2x2x2 and 2x2x2x2, which i'm especially interested about! Enjoy:

And test pilots are what? Imaginary pilots? Or mythical beasts? There are guys who fly by the NATOPS and there are guys who write the NATOPS. Both are equally valid ways to enjoy this product. As for the the latter point, i'm not sure either, as i haven't yet done extensive testing myself. I have a hunch, but i'd rather wait for the developers to chime in, or someone do the tests for me!

Testing purposes, handling and performance evaluation under different conditions. How else do you learn to fly the plane unless you push her to the limits?

@IronMike and @fat creason I think i figured out what he meant last night. I was doing some preliminary FM evaluation (looks roughly ok if a tad fast-ish max speed on the deck BTW, good job) when with the roll SAS on i tried to pull 3g's around 220 knots, something that requires 20-25 units AoA. Lo and behold, there it was, just as in the manual. Wing rock, and if you don't arrest it in time, it can get worst. Much worst, like 30+ degrees to each side. But it can be bypassed with proper coordination and clean stick inputs. I like it!

What seems to be wrong with the rolling? I had a short training fight and some stunts after that this afternoon, and didn't encounter anything peculiar. Mind you this was the IA, so roll SAS was off by default..... but i did push her up to 34 degrees alpha and she didn't depart on me

Note that installed thrust most of the time differs from specified thrust for various reason (inlet geometry, bleed air, engine tuning), but still.... i liked this idea, so i gave it a go tonight. Here's the video, but if people are bored of watching 9 and half minutes of contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions (which i can't blame them for), the end result is there is about 9 and a half percent difference between SFC stated in open sources and burning static in DCS ( 937.9lbs/minute VS 1026.6lbs/minute). As usual, the values in DCS are lower. But i would take this finding with less assuredness .... (is that even a word) then values extracted from flight manuals. Also, the full numbers and calcs are in the description.

Amen to that!

To quote Gimli : "Give me your mission file Horse Master, and i'll give you my Tacview file"...

It was fun at the start, but kinda got old after the first dozen tries or so!

Advocating for bind-able key for NAVGRID-Center aircraft!

JASDF Phantoms? Heck yeah! The prettiest non Navy F-4's to have ever graced the skies if you ask me (which i know you don't)

I did just that above...

This is 100% user error on my part, but can anyone point me to what i'm doing wrong here? Around 19 minutes in, i fire 2 AIM-54A Mk60's at the MiG-28's. The missiles track and go active. One of them scores a hit. But i never get the inverted T when the tracks form i usually get. Now, in this mission you start hot and with the nose down, so maybe some crucial step in the startup is skipped. But in most hot start (aerial start) instant actions and when i start cold and dark in campaigns and MP, the inverted T does show up...... so..... what am i doing wrong? EDIT: the T does show up AFTER i fire.

Of course, the 400 should burn 6.3% more fuel for every pound of thrust in full AB then the 402. The 402 however produces more thrust. About 11% more (10.6 to be more precise). And that's just static thrust, without taking the effects of the ram air as we accelerate. So if we take SFC and static thrust only we get: 16000lbs * 1.85lbs/(lbs*h) = 29600lbs/h for the 400 and 17700lbs * 1.74lbs/(lbs*h) = 30798lbs/h for the 402 That means, even without the extra airflow and extra thrust produced, at full AB the 402 should burn about 4% more then the 400. The data in the manual states the 400 at mach one, full AB burns 1320lbs/min for both engines. The 402 should burn at least 4% more at full AB (and as we are going even faster, probably a bit extra on top of that), or 1373lbs/min for both engines. But what we get in DCS is 1155.7lbs/min or 84.15% of the expected value. That's a 15% difference at least. And probably more.

@NineLine, @BIGNEWY? Anyone? Has anyone reported this? Is it being tracked or investigated?