Pzkfw

Yea, so that sounds like a "no". What's the max speed of a F-86 at 5km?

What is the likelihood of an F-86 intercepting a target with the following conditions? Target doing Mach 0.88 at 5km alt, straight and level. F-86 at 1km altitude 10km distant, carrying Aim-9.

How about just fixing the RWR?!?

The primary flaw in this module is the lack of a correctly functioning RWR. In an environment which heavily features multiple radar guided missiles (such as in multiplayer) this is a critical failure and makes the F-5e extremely difficult to use well when in combination of all its other issues such as Fox-2 limitations, etc. The RWR is there, and it should work well, but it doesn’t. There are many threads about it. The problem has been known for years by the developers, but inexplicably isn’t fixed. It is a huge shame, because it is otherwise an extremely cool, asymmetrically simple but efficient little jet.

I'm sure that cooling the oil is what oil coolers do best, yes.

Water also has a much higher specific heat, and its higher thermal conductivity than oil works both ways - both to absorb heat, and to release it into the atmosphere via radiator. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-liquids-d_1260.html So water both can absorb a huge quantity of heat more than oil, and it also can absorb it faster and release it faster into the environment than oil. This makes it far better of a thermal moderator than oil - which why inline engines can be far more efficient in terms of space and materials of the engine design itself than radials. Why then, use oil cooling at all in a water-cooled engine? Because there are areas that cannot be cooled by water as they are not adjacent to water jackets or contiguous with areas of metal which are. These areas are critical, such as valve stems (and thus valve heads) which when not cooled, act as detonation flash points. Thus some cooling must be provided, and this comes in the form of oil cooling. Oil temperatures rise when the heat of these parts of the engine (which are not in contact with the water jacket) also rises. In this way, the internal heat of critical engine parts is independent somewhat of the engine water (glycol) temperature.

A3 or A5 is lighter than A8 and has similar power. But, the A8 fits Normandy better whereas the Spit IX is still the main British fighter for that time.

Horizontal scissors is the technique you use to escape pursuers.

With increased polygons and graphical updates, there is more computing load for the GPU...

Only skin action? Might be more nimble / slower with meatball camo... :)

Pitot heating light not working correctly. When repairing the aircraft, after repair, the CB switches are visually left on however the system counts them as being off. Some of the new bomb variations are also meaningless, might be good to include some manual on use or actual difference between bomb models.

The pitot heat light is still not working correctly.

Hi there. A8 electrical problems: 1. Landing gear indicator lights go off several minutes into the mission and do not return. Also pitot heat indicator. (already reported) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=254778 2. Unable to independently fire 13mm nose MG using gun power controls on right console, unless 20mm inboards are also powered. 3. Ground electric power works, whether or not you have the external power switch enabled.

Duplicated on every mission I fly.

Hi there- I enjoyed the circuit breaker realism on the A8. It just needed a little fine tuning. Now it's gone! I noticed that several people complained and now since a patch or two ago, not only has the A8's circuit breaker stopped popping on landing gear retraction (positive G should make problems on gear retraction per manual), but also the landing gear lights no longer work consistently. Additionally, why can I use ground power when I don't have the external power switch enabled? Other questions: Are we going to have additional ordinance options besides a single 250kg bomb? Are we going to have more advanced engine failure modes from pushing the engine? Although I think 100/130 PN fuel at 1.4 bar really isn't pushing to detonation point (unless compression ratio really high on BMW 801D?).

I just attempted to max the speed in the Mirage at 45k alt. The aircraft reached mach 2.3 and continued to slowly accelerate... eventually, the left wing ripped off. No aerobatics were done, this was in level flight. My understanding is that the Mirage's maximum speed is mach 2.2. Is this a feature or a bug?

Obviously, use the F-5E with uber sidewinders.

It’s also downright annoying on a groundstrafing run, for instance.

Very strange. I wonder the rationale for always having a seeker tone if there is a missile on the left rail, but not the right one (if the right rail is not energized)?

Well, it makes sense that a tone is heard only after applying electrical power to the weapon and rail. Manuals’ language can sometimes be confusing and it seems common sense to me that the tone should be heard only after arming and supplying electrical power to the missiles, regardless of which station Left or Right. To wit we have a maintenance officer saying the same when he used to check the IR tracking of each missile?

The F5 provides power to hardpoints based on the switch selection in the armament panel. The pilot cannot jettison or release weapons without their respective switches flipped up, and indeed the pilot cannot fire weapons if the “selective positions” jettison switch is enabled. Why then is the IR seeker head of the wingtip missiles energized and provides an audible tone, when the guns/missiles safe switch is set to “arm”, even when the respective wingtip rails are not energizedon the armament panel? If the “guns/missile” safe switch is set to arm, but the wingtip hardpoints aren’t energized, you can’t fire the missile! But you do hear the seeker head growl?! Logically you would expect that with the guns/missile arm switch ON, but the rails not selected/energized, then one should be able to fire the guns, without hearing the constant “growl” - only hearing it when the safe switch AND the wingtip hardpoints are armed and energized. But we get the seeker head growl whenever the guns/missile safe switch is armed - regardless! Why? Can someone explain this to me?

BTW ed tester, cylinders run dry except for splashing of oil from crank.

It is to pre-prime the oil galleys so the oil pressure on startup is not zero for a few seconds. Keep in mind oil pressure is usually measured at crank journals so even if that takes a few seconds to read pressure, the cams etc are not getting pressure for a few seconds even after that. It is debatable if it is strictly necessary as long as the engine has been run some time recently and ambient temperatures are not extreme, as oil forms a film on the parts they are protected for the few seconds without oil pressure. It is still good practice and is "seat of the pants" engine-building and engine-maintaining knowledge.

I am looking forward to ED bringing out the best in simulation fidelity amongst what I consider to be the most immersive and purely-skill driven combat period in aviation history. That will include fleshing out existing fighters and making sure they are complete, including weapons packages and looking at comparative accuracy of their FMs. I believe ED is going to lead the way in this regard, and I hope their philosophy continues with a firm commitment to detail-oriented realistic simulation - and not to deviate to pander to the masses (however tempting, this is a short term solution, only).

I think it is excellent point that study sims should retain their realism. I think DCS excels at this amongst its competitors. However it should be noted that with advent of more WW2 aircraft, they are venturing into relatively uncharted waters. I think ED knows this... It's only when thrown together in a combat situation, especially with prop planes, where minor differences matter. Manifold pressures that are off, or cooling regimens which are off, can dictate win or lose. Gun damage is harder to simulate than missile damage. Dogfighting is more prolonged and differences in aircraft performance are much more closely perceived. Prop planes are the toughest to simulate right, especially in a relative way, while maintaining the level of accuracy that DCS is known for and, which is expected of it. Not only because of the complex aerodynamic effects that a prop throws into play (bringing in much of the same complexity that helos have), but also because they are flown on the edge routinely, with smaller performance margin differences between aircraft than say two modern jet fighters.