Nerd1000

The 'continuous' ECM filter seems to work for me in multiplayer. Locking targets with or without it is very difficult though. Last time I was in multiplayer the radar screen went blank as if the radar was switching to STT mode when I pressed the lock button with the range gate over the target but the radar would then just go back to search mode instead. It took me 5 tries to get a lock on another MiG from behind at 8km range.

Indeed, and even the worst BVR plane (MiG-29A or Mirage 2000?) is better off than something that cannot do BVR at all.

It is worth noting that the teamwork advantage is equally applicable to the F-15. Assuming both are out in the open, 2x F-15s working together and communicating will defeat 2x Flankers doing the same. All of this assumes that nobody makes a big mistake (which happens all the time- usually I'm the culprit).

I imagine that it is up to the receiver because different Radars have different abilities to filter them out (compare the F-15's advanced digital radar to the MiG-21's 'radar', which offers few advances over WW2 technology and may have been built from old microwave ovens).

There is a 'cold start' tutorial in the training menu IIRC.

Better question: Which A6M should we have? If we're getting American carrier based planes then some kind of Zero to face them is practically mandatory. I'd also like to see something like a Ki-84, Ki-100 or N1K2 as a foe for the more advanced Western fighters like the P-51D.

The Seafire Mk III would be the most representative option- It was the most produced variant (though the Griffon powered Mk XV would also be fun, especially since the prop torque pulls you towards the carrier island:helpsmilie:). Aerodynamically it's probably pretty similar to the Mk IX, but rather than having a 2-stage, high altitude rated Merlin it has the Merlin 55, a single stage single speed engine designed to deliver maximum power below 2000m. The thing would be a beast on the deck, but it would suffer at even medium altitude. Of course if you really want the WW2 carrier aircraft, one that saw action everywhere and accounted for itself pretty well, you need the Grumman F4F Wildcat...

I suspect that your problem is mostly that in DCS rockets with a calibre less than 100mm have a tiny explosion radius. As a result you practically need a direct hit to kill a target (even the likes of a truck). It might be worth trying a few different kinds of rocket: the HE rockets should outperform the HEAT ones against soft targets. You can also try launching from a closer range to get a tighter spread- the pipper will probably tell you that the target is in range when you are around 2 nmi away, but closing to 1 nm before firing will give you way better accuracy. As far as firing is concerned, rockets are less affected by G and more by angle of attack/sideslip. This is because they are aerodynamically stabilized: once their fins deploy they will want to point into the apparent wind regardless of what else is happening. The rocket engine is accelerating the rocket at the same time- net result is that if you launch from anything but low AoA coordinated flight they will travel in a curve, causing them to miss.

With regards to the above: Upper table is for dive bombing, lower table is for level bombing. The columns on the upper table from left to right: Initial Dive speed?, initial altitude, dive angle (in grads- there are 400 grads in a circle), Release speed?, Release altitude, Aiming something (perhaps slant range?), pipper depression angle (and also I think something about time of flight for the bombs), Overflight altitude?, Overflight speed?. Lower table: Release altitude, Release speed, pipper depression angle, time of flight? It would be good if someone could test those settings in the sim. My graphics card is deader than the dinosaurs, so I can't really do anything in DCS at the moment.

Got anything on aileron input vs roll rate? As I understand it the original spitfire wing is very 'twisty', so the ailerons get less effective at high deflection (the wing twists the other way, partially cancelling out their effect). The problem was fixed by a new wing on the Mk 21, but it isn't really a WW2 plane. I'm also curious as to how the change to the heavier and longer griffon engine changed the elevator response. It presumably moved the CoG forward a bit.

It is interesting that the Spitfire is often described as being relatively easy to fly in spite of its 'on the edge' neutral stability. At the same time the 109, an aircraft that AFAIK is very stable (so stable that you need all your strength to pull out of a high speed dive) is described as 'difficult' by many authors.

The 'intercept angle' knob on the right side sets the pipper depression for each weapon with the sight in manual mode: the ГШ-23 setting is for the GSh-23L cannon, the 5M setting is for S-5M rockets and the 24 setting is for S-24 rockets. It basically serves to correct for the aim point of the weapon relative to the nose and its drop over normal firing distances. With the sight in auto mode the MiG chooses the correct intercept angle for you. For bombing you instead look at a bombing table for your aircraft and bomb. From this you choose an appropriate dive angle, speed and release altitude for your situation- you can then read off the correct pipper depression angle. To make the attack you set the sight to manual and switch the shooting/bombardment switch to bombardment, then input the correct depression angle into the red window on the right side of the sight using the intercept angle knob. You then enter your dive (ensuring that you fly at the correct dive angle and speed) place the pipper on the target and monitor the altimeter. When you reach the correct altitude you release your bombs and pull out of the dive. Edit: On the topic of bombing charts, there are a few for the L-39 (which uses the same bombs) on the forum. Sadly while the weapons are the same the MiG flies at roughly twice the speed, so the fastest release speeds on the L-39 charts are still too slow for the 21 to use effectively (I think the charts max out at around 600 km/h. Good luck flying the 21 that slowly in a dive, even at idle throttle with the speed brakes out).

Indeed. I'm pretty sure that most people leave the anti-dust on all the time (as that is what the tutorial tells you to do).

I don't understand. When you say 'cog' do you mean Centre of Gravity? Or some part of the elevator mechanism? edit: Okay, got it- they extended the horn balance to move the centre of mass of the elevator forward, possibly reducing flutter. Increasing the area in front of the hinge will reduce stick forces because the area in front of the hinge is subject to aerodynamic forces just like the part behind the hinge. Therefore in an ideal case equal areas in front of and behind the hinge result in zero stick forces at all speeds. This is obviously not good, so planes with an all-flying tail (which is as close as planes come to the 'equal areas' scenario) often have some mechanism to prevent the pilot from over-controlling the plane, for example an anti-servo tab on the stabilator or springs and bob weights in the control system that provide artificial 'feel'.

I think the governor limits exhaust temperature as well as RPM, so you can get a small performance boost without disengaging the governor by turning off the anti-dust/ice system. Just don't leave it off under icing conditions or when you are hovering at low altitude (I've killed engines this way).

The revised elevators on the Mk IX appear to increase the balance area, which suggests that Supermarine were actually trying to reduce the force needed to move the elevators. That makes me suspicious of claims that the elevators were perceived as too light at the time. Surely if the elevator forces were too light they would have reduced the balance area rather than increasing it?

Uhhh... you realize that a missile being crap is no barrier to people firing them at you, right?

perhaps the M818 ran out of ammo for the LAV?

isn't Mach 1.2 the limit on the deck?

Failure rate is almost certainly a function of the age of the missile (fuel degrades, etc). I say give the mission designers a slider so they can set reliability for each faction. Coincidentally, one of the failure modes for rocket engines with old, degraded propellant is an explosion. I'd leave that out or make it optional, because nobody wants to press the launch button only to be blown up by their own weapon.

Just applying rudder and keeping the wings level will cause you to turn. The way I do it (no idea whether this is correct, especially for the Eagle) involves entering a sideslip on final approach- the plane is rolled towards the direction the wind is coming from, while heading is maintained with rudder. This way the plane flies a bit sideways and when you reach the runway your nose is already lined up. You then start to flare, level the wings while at the same time easing off the rudder and touchdown with minimal sideways speed. I'm a little confused that the -1 says maintain the crab until touchdown. While the idea of drifting in my F-15 is compelling, wouldn't that risk blowing out the tires and potentially flip you over?

You know you're a sitting duck when... the LWS lights up from 3 directions at once.

The potential to ignite the enemy's fuel (or potentially even structure, aluminium burns pretty nicely if you get it hot enough).

The 30mm cannon generally works pretty well. Use high fire rate, HE rounds and A-A mode, making sure to lase the target just before you fire each burst. At point blank range you can instead aim manually with the boresight pipper. Unfortunately attacking a Mi-24 with the cannon requires you to get past his ATGMs, which the AI can lock and fire instantly when you get into range. They can be dodged, but it is tricky, and once you get in close the Mi-24 gunner will fire his nose mounted gatling gun at you with uncanny accuracy.

Its this sort of thing that makes me apprehensive about VR. It cuts off your ability to perceive reality while at the same time showing you an illusion that is just a little too convincing.