captain_dalan

@IronMike As it seem this went unnoticed, i'll link it here as well: In short, should the full aft stick result in critical AoA overshoot? That is, should we be able to "oversteer" the F-14?

Pretty much so, yeah. Keep her coordinated and she'll do wonders for you! Not that useless. It will teach him energy management, as the AI has infinite amounts of the same thing, and will help him create memory images of the different planforms depending on what the bandit is doing.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the CFD really only supports straight level shots? That is, no AoA, lofting, g's pulled and other drag inducing activities?

Do you own and fly any of the warbirds, that is WW2 era props?

It affects people flying against it.

Contrary to most people that have a gripe with the current implementation, my issue is not with the upper range performance, but with the more medium range shots against non maneuvering hot or slightly offset bandits. Namely the bell distribution curve for PKs is way too normal (that is symmetric on both sides of the median) when compared with most written or spoken accounts of doctrinal use, that imply it should be skewered towards the nearer ranges. Hopefully improvement in guidance algorithms remedies that. However, it could be that all those mentioned accounts are wrong or exaggerating or outright lies. In such a case maybe the best PK zone is a narrow band around the ideal range that leans both slopes in an equal differential and we are all just spitting at the wind here

Looking at the results of that test, i think that while the overall acceleration is all over the place, not all parts of the envelope are created equal. That is, the time you'll spend being above mach 1.4 or the situations that warrant it, is much less pronounced then the time you'll be between 0.9 and 1.2. At least for most BVR. BTW, has anyone done this for the A model?

Been using this for over 5 years now as i have no room under my desk for rudder paddles and the cost of a new desk + quality rudders is a bit too much for me to invest in. I understand why it may not be enough for the helo guys, but for warbirds and Tomcats it's more then enough.

I'm guessing transonic drag is bonkers? And it's been so for ages now. The A model won't even go supersonic with some loads above certain altitude. As for the reaction to dropping ordnance.....have you guys ever fired a shoulder mounted Sparrow while in a 4x2x2 or 6x2? The thing immediately drops to the heavier side.

Bolded by me. Are you serious? There is literally 0.2-0.3g difference (resulting in 0.4-0.5deg/s turn rate difference) between the two planes at best sustained mach, for the same loadout and with a greater fuel margin for the A (more burner time). Acceleration? Yeah sure. But Turning? There is hardly a difference. Unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 flyers that plans to do lateral cartwheels with the plane, your engines won't die either.

So no feedback on this? @IronMike?

Or wait for the trans sonic drag to be fixed

Ahoy there mates, it's been a long time. This is not a bug report, or i would have posted in the bugs section, but rather question on the edge of the envelope scenarios. I've been doing some flight tests for a friend recently, and some of those involved riding the max lift all the way down to stall speeds. Now, i could be wrong (it would not be the first time), but if memory serves, with the wings forward to 22 degrees, this meant 30 units of AoA, or 32-33 degrees. As the AoA spiked and airspeed dropped, i started adding appropriate rudder inputs, which bellow 200 knots generally meant (after making sure you are coordinated) full rudder in the direction of bank, in order to prevent the nose from sliding in the opposite direction. This is how i used to do it anyway. To my great surprise, i found that the rudder didn't have enough authority to keep the nose level and straight. Especially bellow 170-160, no matter how hard i stepped on it, my nose kept sliding "up". It may be my technique that is wrong, however when i checked the tacview file, i noticed something strange. Unfortunately, some weeks ago i deleted all of my old test tracks, in order to save space, so i can't compare the test data side by side. But the new tests, indicate my angle of attack to spike over 34 degrees when i pull the stick full aft. Often going up to 35. This is post stall category unless i'm mistaken. And it's not just transient alpha either. Once pegged it stays there. So i started the mission again and this time i pulled gradually. First to 20 units, then 25 units, then 30 units...... and look, i still hade more stick travel unused. And as long as i didn't use that extra travel, the true AoA remained inside 32-33 degrees and my rudder authority was enough to arrest any slipping or sliding tendencies. As soon as i pulled that extra inch or so, my nose went sliding and the rudder could not keep up, even when engaged before the pull. So, what gives? Were the controls changed somewhere along the way? Is this the intended behavior? Should we actually be able to "oversteer" the plane with full aft stick command? And if so, should the CLmax line follow the 32 or 35 degrees AoA? Thank you for your time. Tacview files attached bellow! Cheers and clear skies Tacview-20220501-193157-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14B 5000ft 55620lbs.zip.acmi Tacview-20220501-203938-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14A low clean.zip.acmi

1. Eh, the instruments in the B were exactly the same as they were in the A until fairly recently anyway. I doubt most people even noticed the the difference when they were changed 2. From what i've seen thusfar, most DCS users hardly use the throttles during BFM for compressor stalls to be an issue, and a good portion of those would crash long before they killed an engine if they pulled AoA and sideslip sufficient enough to kill an engine. 3. They most definitely are. Zone 5 is my all time favorite in any plane i've purchased in DCS! In short, i think most people that stay away from the A, just do so on general principle, not because of any technical issues

I thing HB can no longer help you there.

Isn't all ammunition now ED controlled?

Any chance for a hotfix that will repair the issue without disabling the wake turbulence?

If only the alpha induced drag dependency was linear and with a shallow slope.....alas, while the excess power available relation to sustained turn rate is, relation to drag isn't. In the above mentioned example, the 30% increase in installed static thrust resulted in a 0.75 deg/s difference (about 5% increase) at 10000ft and 0.85 deg/s difference (again about 5% increase - no big surprise there) at 5000ft. Even after adjusting for the extra weight gained by the aircraft over their lifespan, the increase in STR (or any higher angle of attack related metric really) due to increase in thrust in relative units is going to remain in single digits. At best 8-9% BUT with lower fuel margins on ordnance/payload available. For similar configurations, the increase is more likely to drop to 3-4%. So....no, a 13% difference is not a slight oversight. IF and i must emphasize that if, the OP's data is remotely accurate (which might as well not be), a discrepancy of that margin is enough to warrant a new plane. Degree and half difference is a lot, even at sea level. At 10000ft? It's unheard of.

You're kidding, right? A 30% increase of static installed trust in another plane resulted in less STR increase ASL, and you are telling me that 1.7 (if indeed so) at 10kft is not worth the attention? Mate, that kind of change would make for whole different plane

Happens to all of us. Looking forward to your F-14 analysis. Would love to help, unfortunately not much time for DCS lately Hardly 30 minutes on my belt in the last month.

Indeed that one!

You also made a very good video on the exact topic the OP was asking his/her question, but it would not share it without your permission.

To the OP, check out this Tacview file. It's the F-14A equivalent of the same mission, with the bandits being J-11's instead of JF-17. You may find some aspects of it useful. This was done on the first try after more then a month of DCS hiatus. Hope it helps, cheers! Tacview-20220416-213251-DCS-F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JA11.zip.acmi

Yeah, i've done that for my training missions, to adjust for different Viper variants as well. However, that does leave us with less mission time. I'm not sure how different dogfighter servers handle this, but i think most do either 50% fuel, or same time in burner for all planes. So one should take it into account when managing expectations.

Our Vipers seem to be a bit heavier though, even without CM's and gun ammo.