ArkRoyal

1.) Your point exactly? At this point the aircraft is dead. Getting a cue from the aircraft computer to tell the pilot he can either take his chances with counter measures or eject is alot better than crossing your fingers when your dead and dont even know it. 2)Once again....so? A data link could easily keep the planes in contact is nearly every situation. Add in a system like the F-35's DASS, and your even better off (which can also IFF). Not to mention IFF here isnt the point. The pilot would have control over the system, so he could choose to disengage it if he saw a collision coming. If he didnt see it coming, we'd still be getting a collision missile defense system or not. 3) I was never implying you had that information in first place. Only that you know you have been launched on. Once you have been fired on, the computer could take into account the launch platforms kinematics and determine what it is and is not possible for the missile to do. Missile type could either be selected by the pilot or computer depending on how you want to rig it. Ideally, it would be designed to allow the pilot to choose the threat after feeding possible threats to the pilot. IE: hostile platform was Su-27SM, range/speed/aspect etc was blank blank blank, pilot chooses threat from possible missile selection of enemy plane, computer offers defeat options based on pilot selection and other factors. Essentially, the computer shows the pilot profiles the the enemy missile simply couldnt fly based on the launch conditions. Pilot selects one based on his intentions (for example, does he want to go completely defensive or not.) In fact, such data could inform the pilot when he absolutely needs to go full defensive, by showing him the point of no return. And that is going off my original assumption that no further information is received on the missiles status. Some modern sensors my very well be able to track the missile at certain ranges. Not that my ideas matter, because the system already exists. And appears to function almost exactly I envisioned myself, ". By identifying the opponent's platform based on emitter identity or suspected target type, based on systems that are in the inventory of the enemy, the potential weapons load of the opponent is determined, as well as their effective range and tactical ability. [36] These libraries are for the Euro Fighter operators freely programmable and the current threat level can be adjusted at any time. [32] When flying with high g-loads information is sent from the Flight Control System (FCS) to the ESM to take into account the bending of the wings in the position determination of the targets. The ESM appreciates the distance to the destination, based on the signal amplitude. The DF accuracy is higher with less than 1 ° as the CAPTOR radar. [32] [37] Due to its high angular accuracy, the system can also be used for geolocation of emitters and fire control. [38] [13] [39] [40] [Ah. 1] The positioning of air targets is challenging since they move in an unknown distance to an unknown price and unknown speed. In order to solve the problem two Kalman filter for a recursive Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) is used, which the antenna positions Interferometriemessungen for angle determination, the Pulse Descriptor Word (PDW), mission data, real-time constraints and track data used by other sensors distance, speed and heading of the target output. . If the angle change is too low, for example, because the transmitter is at a great distance or in front of the aircraft, there are two ways: [36] [Ah. 2] The wingmen send over the data link angle measurements and the PDW. This data is angular, signal-to-noise ratio, SEI (Specific emitter ID of the threat / target radar) over time correlates. The own machine and the wingmen can so determine the target position, because the distance between the own aircraft is known (triangulation.) [36] [41] do not have this option available, accesses the second option: The DAC calculates whether through the emitter there is sufficient information in order to give the pilot a maneuver instruction on the HUD. If this is the case, there are two standard maneuvers are available: the 2-turn two 90 ° curves with a straight line to be flown in between, so that the direction of flight after the maneuver with the foregoing is the same. The second maneuver is sinusoid, in principle, the emitter is served here in a zigzag. The overlays in the HUD are like while dodging missiles; an arrow indicates the direction and g-force to, in addition to the price and the duration of the maneuver are displayed. [36] [Ah. 2] In the event that no antenna in vertical tail exists (see below), there is a second patent by BAE Systems, which can calculate the target positions in three dimensions with azimuth measurements maneuvers overlays and data links. The data processing is more complex here with 12 Kalman Filter as angular measurements, the PDW and other things must also be correlated internally in a database. The Interacting Multiple Model differs here, whether the target air maneuvers or maintains its course. Otherwise, the data processing is identical to that described above. The maximum range of the method is specified with 120 nm (216 km). [42] [Ah. 2] Due to the principle this is only possible in the front hemisphere, since the right rear pod contains the towing jammers. In the rear hemisphere is only a rough indication of the angle (6-18 GHz or 32-38 GHz) or sector (0.1-6 GHz) as the bottom left, top right, etc. possible. Electronic Warfare [Edit]"

Whoa whoa whoa. Who said anything about doing this in DCS? This isnt in the game section of the forum for a reason.... Second, all of those things you mention could easily be accounted for. 1) computer could warning the pilot before a high G maneuver is sustained. It could also of course be programed to fly withing human limits, just like it is programed to fly within the aircraft limits.... 2) It can use its sensors to defect friendly planes, even data links could be used for this....There is no reason whatsoever a machine could not detects its own wingman. If you install this system in a plane without the requisite sensors to make it work, thats just like installing a AMRAAM in a plane without a radar. 3) If for some reason you installed this on a plane without sufficient sensor fusion or data links to understand its own surroundings, I mentioned that such a system could be either pilot directed and pilot initiated. For example, the ai could just plot courses and the pilot fly them himself. Or if the pilot perceives a problem at any point in the auto verstion...he just takes back control.

Ok so it doesn't exist. I hadn't heard of anything like it either. But I dont see any reason why would couldnt or wouldnt. Not perfect maybe, but quite a bit more precise than any human reasoning could produce. Particularly in situations where it might be almost impossible for a human pilot to determine the right course of action due to the number of kinematic solutions being very low. As for being perfect, I also cannot see why not. Presume for the sake of argument that you have at least on missile where you have all the data for it. Physics is absolute, not subjective. It doesn't ever change, and is always the same. If you know the missiles capabilities, and the target planes abilities, then I see no reason that a computer couldn't determine all possible routes of escape right up to the physical limit. Weather would play a role, but this could be input as well, or compensated for by adding in a safety of minus 10 percent or so. This could also be dont for any other unpredictable factors. Essentially, at that point missile defeat is binary. Either there is a available flight profile to live or there is not. This of course bring up another subject as well, what happens when we start using AI for jets completely? The 6th gen jet is supposed to be optionally manned. At some point, you will be able to make a jet that requires no human pilot. It seems to me that at that point air combat both WVR and BVR would become a routine binary exercise. If both AI aircraft know with a reasonable level of accuracy what the characteristics of the other are, then BFM becomes merely a physics experiment. With a human pilot, mistakes get made, estimates of energy and aspect wrong etc. A properly programs AI wouldn't have this issue. For the sake of argument, I am presuming the computers were programmed properly for BFM etc. When two planes merge, (or even well before this really) they would be able to see based on the attributes of the opponent plane all possible BFM solutions. Choose what works. Then one plane wins. Every single time. Perhaps even the other plane realizes it cant win and just runs. Or perhaps it realizes it cant run either. Perhaps nations run sims to find this out before the war even starts and dont even waste their time and just surrender....

So just doing some reading on weapons/playing DCS or BMS got me to thinking about missile defense in general and something that should have been obvious earlier sprang to mind. Perhaps they do and Ive never seen anything on it, but why dont jets of the modern age have a missile defeat auto pilot? To be clear, this would be something you could turn on or off when you wanted to. When a pilot tries to defeat a BVR missile, he is basically doing some well trained guesswork to defeat said missile. Being show down either comes from entering the missiles no-escape zone on accident or making a bad guess about how to defeat a incoming threat in any other geometry. So essentially, human error. It seems to me like a computer could plot a missile defeat course with essentially nearly 100% chance of success. It has been said on here before that even inside of NEZ or RTR a missile can still be defeated kinetically but that doing so is extremely difficult because the number of successful defeat options is extremely low and hard to fly. Wouldn't a computer be able thread the needle even then? Even if there was only one tiny little loophole to escape, a computer could find it and fly it. Seems like it would work like this: 1) aircraft sensors ID thread, or aicraft is programs for theatre threats, or pilot uses info to input this manually when fired on. 2) When pilot wants to activate the computer autopilot for BVR. OR it could function as a component of his HSD or hud, simply showing him a flight path he could fly. Perhaps it could show options for both offensive or pure defense routs based on what the pilot wanted to do. IE: it could show the pilot what his options were. How fare he could commit etc. Even once committed what defensive options would succeed. Lastly, for any missiles a nation did not have data for, it seems to me that "close enough" estimates could be programmed into said device, since this would still be more information than the human pilot would have. So has anyone heard of anything like this?

Just a sidenote here: a R-27ER does not have a longer range than the AIM-120C. It doesnt even outrange the AIM-120A. This is a misnomer caused by impressions given to people from FC2 and cursory readings of max missile ranges given on most websites. In reality, the ranges given for missiles on most web pages are not for equivalent altiitude/speed at launch. IIRC, the 70nm often quoted for a ER is for a mach 2.5 launch from 50k against a equivalent target. This is not necessarily the case for a slammer, although data like that for that missile is still classified, even for the A. What we do know is that the A model was required to have more range than Sparrow. We also have data on the AIM-7F, which you can get from archive of SAC. Launched at a much lower height and much lower speed, RMAX for the aim7F was 53nm. Doing some interpolation for different launch conditions, you arrive at the fact that that AIM7-F/M and R-27ER were roughly equivalent. The aim-120A was superior to the ER and the 7M....and were now 3 generations of aim120 later..... Long story short, a missile from the late 80s to be anywhere near the ballpark of a missile from the mid 2000s.

Your measure average climb rate if I'm reading your posts right. The problem with the flight model is climb rate at specific altitudes. Around sea level to 7000ft, to be precise. To do a climb test, maintain a constant speed of 300kmh IAS up to 7k. Use tacview or the in-game vario-meter to check the climb rate at different points.

But I DO need to answer. :lol: My post was very relevant, for reasons I spelled out above. You apparently didn't read it, in the future please try to keep up with the conversation :D Oh and there is no need for inflammation. If you are getting inflamed, you might want to work on that. The current 109 IS too slow. I don't disagree with that. The issue here is that once again we are being fed the same old nonsense. Every time a flight model is disputed with historical documentation, "problems" are found in that documentation. And like I said before, those "problems" have no evidence to support their insinuation outside of the fact that the ED flight model doesn't agree with them.

In game right now the 109 climbs at about 25m/s (5000ft/min) at max fuel and ammo etc. It should be around 22.5m/s (4400fpm). It has been this way for a long time. When it was first released, it climbed at around 6000ft/min. What I think is interesting here is that we somehow have a 109k that is too slow, but climbs to fast.

You've got me all wrong. By all means continue your argument about 109 speed. Me pointing out their is bias on both sides is highly relevant to any legitimate debate. Its always important to know if all the players are on the level. :music_whistling: What you don't see here is that I'm trying to help you out. Albeit, I cannot in good conscience do that by pretending the wrong party here was never without its own foibles. This is the common ED tactic. Whenever concrete evidence is given to refute the present nature of a flight model, ED makes insinuations as to the accuracy of the documentation given. There is never any explicit evidence of this other than the FM not agreeing with the data. So you see, I'm helping us all out by pointing out that this same method is being used against both sides of the aisle. But to be fair, in good conscience, I simply must point out that this particular side of the aisle has sided with the aforementioned tactic when convenient. :megalol: But by all means....continue your arguments to fix the 109.

My good man, but I was on topic. I am merely commenting on the spirit of the discourse in this thread. :D

Oh I must say this is all rather entertaining. For those of you on the sidelines, or not familiar with the history of complaints for the DCS WW2 Aircraft, you might find what I'm about to say interesting. For those of you who are in the know, teeheehee. Alright people, what we have here is a classic case of the shoe being on the other foot. What is truly captivating here is watching the three primary axis fanboys on these forums doing their darnedest to prove the 109K is wrong through documentation. Interesting approach, considering that in every thread where documentation was used to claim axis aircraft were over-performing, they used every trick in the book to obfuscate the issue and claim the documents were wrong in one way or another. Now that Yo-Yo has castrated one of their own planes, they seek to prove him wrong with the historical documentation. :music_whistling: But I gotta hand it to Yo-Yo. I certainly dont agree with this approach, but at least he is being consistent with his usual explanation for a FM problem when it doesn't agree with government data. As per usual, the government data is flawed in some manner. The only evidence of this error being that ED's flight model doesn't agree with the historical data (which of course means its the historical data that is wrong, not the FM. :music_whistling:) There is never any explicit evidence of such documentation errors on the various governments parts: it is merely presumed that the governments in question were at fault in some convenient manner, and ED's math is never wrong.

Your point on this issue is largely moot. If in fact you actually conducted your level speed run correctly, we still don't really have a problem here. At least not relatively speaking. Your tested speed of 354mph about 5mph slower than the in game P-51s stop SL speed about about 360mph. This isnt bad considering that a P-51D (w/wing racks) could do 375mph to your K4's 370mph:music_whistling: You should rejoice that at least one aspect of the reletive 109/51 flight model is correct :megalol: By they way, I'm sure you just forgot to mention it :megalol:, but those same German graphs show that the current in game bf109 is massively over climbing! As of the latest patch the 109 at max internal fuel is still climbing at about 5000 feet per minute! Also known as 600 feet per minute faster than it should be! I am sure you were just about to either start a new climb thread or post your consternation at this error is one of the existing ones!

GGTharos basically said what I would have said regarding my data and where it comes from. However Ill add a few things. There is tons of data on the internet, and other places, on how these missiles should perform. I quite frankly do not have time to look it up for you right now, as this would be pages and pages of stuff. This subject has been talked to death on here, and the consensus BY FAR is that the missiles are majorly wrong in terms of their performance. I dont have time to dredge up dozens of threads for you. Look it up yourself. Im not here to convince you really. This thread was for people who already understand the nature of this issue and already know the data.

I do not see it as a step backwards. The the method of the SFM missiles was wrong, but their general capability was more realistic, if not exactly realistic. Sometimes you get a better end result by cheating. The AFM missiles are completely----in terms of their combat abilities----rubbish as they are currently. With your point on updates---ok sure, like I said in improved AFM system is ideal. I agree with you. Question is, if ED could do that.....where has that been in the last 3 years? Also if I understand your point here, you seem to be implying cheating withing the AFM. Making a missile even more agile to compensate for bad guidance or aerodynamics does not seem very different to me than just doing the SFM. But I digress, this is just a difference in suggested method to get the same results. To me using the SFM would be faster. I dont see any-----effective-----gains in realism. Keep in mind that I'm thinking of realisim in terms of missile effectiveness for given parameters and ranges etc. Sure, they are more sophisticated that the SFM, but that doesnt make for more "realism" in a battlefield sense. Its not unlike a post GGTharos made recently concerning the way chaff is modeled. You could attempt to make it more sophisticated, but much like the missile AFM, your end result may not actually be more realistic. To your last point: I dont know how effective you think the AFM is right now, but a good pilot can dodge the current missiles from nearly any aspect or range. Even at the typical kill range of 6-8nm. When people shoot at me I defeat nearly all missiles, the only ones I get hit by ususally are ones I didn't see coming, or I got overwhelmed from several sides.

You have missed my point. The AFM---in terms of phyics----seems fine. The missile parameters, as you said are one of the factors making them bad. The OTHER factor (and I am not the only person to have said this) is the PN only guidance. Even if you get the DCS missiles mod the missiles are still very very ineffective. This is because they have very out-moded guidance for the targets they are trying to hit. So in summary once again: AFM missiles need AFM guidance. Doing one without the other is, as this game should be making clear to everyone who has played online or otherwise, a very bad idea.

Much as been said about the missiles, but with DCS 2.0 out I just cant handle their horribleness anymore. Ever since the AFM came out, the missiles have been awful. Its been 3 years since then and no fix what-so-ever. The SFM missiles had their issues, but they made fore a overall more realistic experience. Tired of seeing missiles miss even at 6-8nm. Here is main my main point: As it is known, the current missiles use PN guidance exclusively. Exclusive PN guidance has not been considered effective since the 50's and 60's. It only worked when the missile had a huge KE advantage. The AFM, which has been demonstrated to have double the drag it is supposed to, also makes the current guidance obsolete. When we had the SFM, you could afford less efficient guidance since the missiles had less physics to deal with. Now we have missiles with better phyics (if incorrect drag) and the PN guidance they use is completely inadequate. So Id like to see how many of you wouldnt mind having the SFM back on the missiles until the AFM has appropriate guidance.

Sidenote, I also tested Acceleration to see if the tuning for 20C is fixed. It appears to have been, as I was getting the correct figures for the -1. In addition to this, performance at 20C would be worse than a standard day, so it seems to me that the "thrust" issue of the Eagle would actually improve its performance when fixed, not make it worse. Although, from what I can tell, the plane is now correctly tuned.

Thanks:) For my SA, which part is incorrect? Do you think I'm right regarding relative turn rate for the Eagle when at proportional weight? When you refer to low and slow advantages, are you referring to radius? In some of the mock dogfights I did after testing the specific performance, we noticed that a Flanker could reverse its turn after the first circle, cut speed by pulling high AoA and line up a Archer shot in this manner. Quite a bit like the tactics employed by the say, a F-18. Nose to nose fighting instead of nose to tail. However, in a classic nose to tail fight, that doesn't do much for the flanker if the fight is guns only and the Eagle just keeps on turning. Although you might lose him for a second, or trick a dumb pilot into going slow with you. Although it seems to me that in a guns only fight, a Eagle could either stay at corner and simply come around at again at best rate, or take advantage of the fact that the Flanker dumped his E to shorten his radius and go vertical. Also for testing I did note the T/R issue in tacview, so instead I measured it by timing the circle in tacview. Also recorded Mach and G but didnt include it here.

Ok everyone buckle you seat belts, were about to go for ride that I think will settle this issue. :) So after some more thinking on this, trying to figure out the statements by GGTharos that appear to be contradictory and the other issue that have come up in this thread, I thought it would make sense to just start over totally. To do that, I went in game and tested the Flanker and F-15 at comparable fuel loads and compared them to the Documents we have on the Flanker and the -1 for the F-15. Let us begin. Please direct your attention to Figure 1. I am sure we are all familiar with this by now. Red is in game F-15 Performance at 50% fuel. Blue is the Same for the Flanker. Brown is the Flight tested performance of the Eagle in the -1, at the lowest weight in the -1, which is ^7% fuel, or 2300lbs heavier. Now previously it was assumed that this Russian chart was for both planes at 50%, than that seems likely still. Note that the F-15 at 67% fuel in the -1 performs slightly worse, which corroborates the Russian estimate shown here. Note that while my turn testing in game did not yield the same numbers, this is probably due to my own error (because holding these turns was on the edge of G limit in most cases). More importantly, they are basically proportional to the official figures for both aircraft. So what this shows is that at corner speed, the F-15 CAN out-rate a Flanker, while at lower speeds near its own corner the Flanker out-rates the Eagle. The Flanker has a larger margin for error here, since there is a narrow band in which the eagle can sustain corner without going into G-Loc. But it can out turn the flanker around .7 to .8 mach SL. The reason I suggest for this is a difference in weight and how we are comparing these documents. A flanker consumes fuel hugely faster than an Eagle. I tested both planes a sea level at the same speed at AB and got 2000lbs/min for the Eagle and 3333lbs/min for the flanker, at low speed just around 250knots. Fuel consumption for the Flanker is even higher at higher speed, proportionally. This should not be news to anyone, the Flanker hogs fuel. It has always been that way, even since the SFM. So you need a proportionally heavier Flanker to have the same time on station at any speed. So a Eagle at 50% or 6700lbs of fuel, would would need a Flanker loaded with 11,165lbs, or the 56% we see as the default for the in game Flanker........Also note, that previous testing showed that at supersonic speeds, a Flanker would need even more fuel to remain equivalent. A 16,000lbs fuel Flanker equaling a 13,400lbs Eagle. So in Summary. Your being out turned because at proportional weight, the Eagle actually does turn better, slightly. So it looks to me like the game is accurate, as it appears to have the relative performance, down pat. It may also very well be the exacting performance, due to errors on my part.

I'm going to end this rubbish. The G effect from the incline in these WW2 fighters is infinitesimal. The Incline in F-16 was only about 1G, so no 109 or 190 is going to be getting 1.5 or even 2 G out of this. Crumpp, it is hard to believe you don't know this. But lets cease with the angle mongering and just cut to the actual date: I measured the inclines of the two seats, and in the 190 you have about 20 degrees to the P-51s 14 degrees. Pilot posture would alter this in meaningless ways. At 20 degrees, you brain blood pressure would be so low as to make no meaningful difference in G tolerance. "In a study in which 250 centrifuge runs were made on human volunteers, it was demonstrated that systolic blood pressure in the radial artery held at eye level was reduced by 32 mm of mercury for every G added to the ± G2 force. Visual disturbances occurred when the systolic blood pres- sure at the base of the brain was reduced to 50 mm of mercury and complete loss of vision occurred when the pressure was reduced to 20 mm of mercury. Loss of consciousness occurred when the systolic pressure at brain level was reduced to zero. This would be equivalent to a five ± G pull, i.e., 5 x 32 = 160, where the blood pressure at the base of the brain would be reduced to zero if the systolic blood pressure in the subject was 160 at the heart level."--historic.aerobatics.org Eoin Harvy, MD. Complete loss of vision occurs at a brain BP of 20. COMPLETE LOSS. So you would need at least 35 degree, double what is shown here, to get even a single solitary G of tolerance.....and you would be on the very edge of a complete blackout. So no, you are not going to get 1.5 to 2G of tolerance from this. And in order to pull the 6.5 to 7 G posted earlier, you would need to have a angle of 45 degrees....

GG, my statement and others was, whether you think it a waste of time or not, about your statements. Not IRL. You do not get to tell me what my intent was in my posts. :) Second let state some facts base on what we both just said. 1. You are assuming ED has information you do not. 2. You are assuming that said information is accurate. 3. You are assuming that ED used that data correctly 4. You are assuming that ED made no serious mistakes in then applying that data to the game. You are applying a double standard ED vs the rest of us. To be clear: ED can do whatever they want. If they want to sell games and see no reason to prove to any degree that their aircraft are indeed accurate, they can very well go right ahead and do this. However, your idea that we are being silly by asking for more that "trust us, we have secret data you dont" is crazy man. If you want to, go right ahead. But please don't insinuate that the rest of us are being ridiculous when we aren't satisfied with that explanation. It is impossible to for ED to prove itself correct on these matters unless it demonstrates its own data is real and superior to whatever the community possesses. Period. Full stop. ED doesnt have to have a conversation with us at all, but if there is to be one, you cant very well demand proof when not applying that standard to the company itself. I could very well claim I have secret data that I cant share with you. See how convincing that is?:smilewink: Let us just state the obvious so that there isnt a misunderstanding. ED is under no obligation to listen to any criticism or change anything etc. They can do as they darn well please with their game. Roger. But lets not beat around the bush here. Nothing anyone says on here every constitutes proof of anything to ED. ED does what it wants, they aren't even slightly forthcoming with FM data, or inclined whatsoever to explain anything to their player base that isn't a deflection. The missile mod report was shrugged off like nothing if the statements they made in that thread are reflective of actual policy. They can do what they want, and we will probably keep buying their stuff (kinda the idea right?:D) But when someone gets on here and makes a complaint, its rather exasperating when you think were being unreasonable when we down down the Kool-Aid when told do so with no further evidence.

Point # 1: Not news, I am aware that the performance changes as conditions change. 2: You misunderstand. A flight manual for IRL, is not relevant in showing that the game is not performing consistently with things you have said. This is a question of your statements vs the game, not your statements or mine vs IRL. 3/4/5: Tell me something. If the community is expected to provide ample evidence that something is incorrect, why should we not expect the same of ED? Your statement implies that you also have never seen this data they are supposedly working with with your own eyes, which means you are taking them at face value. Perhaps they really do have information. But if that data is at odds with everything else available to everyone else, I see no reason why we should all be expected to swallow the blue pill. So while I still stand by that my original argument is about the game vs what you said... not what you said vs IRL or IRL vs anything else.............if ED wants people to stop whinging about supposed performance problems, then it would behoove them to be as forthcoming with proof as you apparently expect myself and everyone else here to.

What gives is that we are comparing in game performance predominantly against statements that you have made. Others have already pointed that out for me. I agree completely that the Flanker should be about 2 deg/sec better at the speed you stated. This is not news, as is already implied that I think something is wrong with what essentially everyone except for you is seeing in game. As for weight, I had the Eagle at 50%, and the Flanker a 47%. This is close to being equivalent in fuel in terms of time. Actually less, since I ran out of fuel in the 27 before the Eagle. So I stand only to get heaver. Altitude was about 6000ft, and remained basically constant. I dont need 10 pages of flight manuals to point out that the plane is not performing as you say it is. As to whether or not the game is currently consistent with real life, well you stated your self the 2 deg/sec figure, and have on numerous occasions stated the Flanker should without a doubt win a nose to tail turning fight at low altitude. So, while I have seen some Flanker data and Eagle data on my own, lets not obfuscate things by pretending I have to prove something with data that you already agree with.:smilewink:

So we did several dogfights at a range of different speeds. And there is definitely something wrong with one off these planes FM's, or both. Imagine that...a AFM that is worse than a SFM....su-27, F-15, all the missiles, all the ww2 birds..........:music_whistling: Anyhow, this is what we got. Right around 720kph IAS was the best I could sustain in a Flanker without going into GLOC. At that speed, and with the Eagle at 350knots IAS, we were equal. We went round and round and round without gaining any purchase. If I tried to turn faster than that, I pull too much G. If I went slower, the Eagle out turned me. If we both went slower, the Flanker won. But, why would the eagle choose to do that? He wouldnt. So bottom line, at typical corning speeds, they are tit-for-tat. And that is assuming he was at best speed for a Eagle at that weight. He very well could have been turning worse than optimal, and I dont see how I could have made my turn any better. So GGtharos, what gives?

PMing you TS and server info