MikeMikeJuliet

Speaking of which... someone posted a manual for LHA carrier operations... it is somewhere here, but there are literally 200 pages for me to go through, so if someone has the link... I need to save these on my PC...

As it has been said before by me and others: not all aircrafg have had preorders. Latest one has been the Gazelle which was released with no pre-order at all. It could very well be the case here as well. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The Gazelle for one came out with no pre-order period at all. It might very well be the case here as well. Meaning the Harrier could be released to us at any moment. Could this be called a literal two weeks tm?

I guess the point of all this was not to debate weither or not the F-22 would or should fight the Fokker. The nice thing about thought experiments is that we can just ignore that aspect and focus on the dynamics of the fight itself. It indeed makes no sense, but that is partly why it is a thought experiment and not a serious debate. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Just to confirm, were the values on your post in knots or in kilometers per hour? Going by the document BogeyJammer posted, those values are quite close in KCAS. If this is the case, then no wonder I had a feeling the speeds were a bit low :D

One has to learn to accept the future either way :D My approach to the subject is: If it is released tomorrow, great! If not, I've got half a dozen modules that I haven't mastered, not to mention close to a hundred unfinished games on Steam and GOG... my day won't be ruined by not having a thing that I don't have at the moment either.

Well, there are only 3 weekends left of this week, and Q3 release and/or "we are on schedule" have been put out there numerous times in the las 2 months, and now this... I would say the propability for release info at least is quite high tomorrow. Not 100% mind you, but I wouldn't call it a slim chance either.

I haven't tested so I ask: What does the cockpit sound -slider do exactly? My assumption is that it controls the volume of cockpit elements, such as switches, RWR sounds etc. Or does it control all volumes inside the cockpit? If the latter is the case then I guess this is already solved?

Allright, that explains it. Many aircraft also have Nomogrammes for the purpose... the multi-graph pages where you trace a line from one graph to the next to get values out of in one go, though I would assume creating one is a tedious task if the manual doesn't include any...

In Soviet Russia, G pulls you.

Thankyou for the answers! I am a bit surprised that the max ITR and STR are attained at such a low speed. One would expect that being so close to the evolutive speed, and below the 600 km/h mark (above fly with g, below with aoa) that the aircraft would not be able to hold speed. Then again, as speed increases same G increases turn circle eventually increasing turn rate... and the STR is attained at a relatively low G. Interesting. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

My reaction:

I don't really think there is any competition here - but thoughts that arise from such a ridiculous asymmetric setup. I vote for the Fokker... the F-22 pilot will laugh so hard he dies. :D

Hello, everyone. I've been studying the MiG-21 for a bit now and I'm in process of creating a "cheat sheet" for the most important numbers, limitations and weight calculations. But there are a number of things missing from the manual regarding the aircraft's performance. Namely: IAS/TAS/Mach speed for maximum climb angle, IAS/TAS/Mach speed for maximum climb rate with 100%, AFB and CSR IAS/TAS/Mach speed for fuel efficient climb Corner speed and ITR in degrees/second Speed for max STR, and STR in degrees/second Speed of minimum turn radius Maximum required landing run and additionally, if someone knows (though I can test these easily) Minimum required altitude AGL for pure vertical maneuvering (namely split-S). Has anyone done research on these that they are willing to share? Might there be documents about this available? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I like options, and this one would be particularly handy when operating the -21 in a more modern scenario. Adding this would by no means mean that the old system would be deleted. It would only be another option... Besides the GPS-module's worth is largely in the amount of aircraft you can use it in.

What kind of calculations are we talking about, just to get a clearer picture?

I agree with the sentiment, but not with the argument. In flightschool a pilot is tought to not trust in the gut-feeling, because many times, due to the nature of flying and spatial illusions, a pilot's feel is incorrect to what is happening. Now the argument is not completely false - take-offs and landings are largely visual occurence close to the ground, but for most of the time a pilot should orient him/herself by the indicators the aircraft provides, and not the inner ear. There are frequent cases that, coming out of IFR conditions a pilot is absolutely sure he is upside down or a good 110 degrees to either side, even if the aircraft is in straight and level flight. Secondly, the gauges would partly defeat the purpose of trusting in instruments, and lessen the surprise moment of pitot-static system failures, because you could always just look at the ascend-decend "gut-feel"-gauge to verify if your system is at fault. I would like to have a system to indicate the gut-feel for sure... they make for interesting situations when you think you are one way when you aren't... but unfortunately as long as we can't create artificial gravity in a room, this will not be possible in a reasonable manner. An interesting idea though. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Yes! This is a must. Too many times I want to change aircraft on a server, and while I change, the damn camera behind the menus jumps to an AWACS and by ears pop and I can't hear my squad mates on VOIP or anything else. Plus, if I fly without headphones it alarms the entire house. Regards, MikeMikejuliet

The other solution would be to make rule-of-thumb values for fuel quantities. That said, it would be handy to have the load-out window in-game that would show your fuel amount in endurance/range in addition to the % of fuel. Naturally this would only be true for a certain throttle setting and a certain flight profile, but there could be some generic values to give you at least an idea of what your fuel amount means.

While a "little fun thought experiment", I think there is something to be thought about in here. Utility aircraft, especially tactical transports or CSAR helicopters etc are slow and barely maneuver. While they do pose a larger radar signature, if flying very low, they might not be easily detectable. I would also consider the "wtf is that?" moment of the F-22 pilot, and the difficulty of measuring the target aircrafts energy state, direction of motion and especially speed, since these kinds of targets are not the norm. A target that is significantly larger or smaller than what you are used to is more difficult to judge distance to and the speed of. In a quick one-shot situation this might be the million-dollar luck the defensive aircraft needs to avoid the instant kill, try to get out of sight and pray for a safe RTB. Now of course, there will never be a real fight between the F-22 and the Fokker, but some aspects may still translate to other engagements. A leaker aircraft meets a supportive aircraft in the visual arena... might be the pilot is not prepared, and won't put up his/her A-game. Taking the OP setup, I feel the F-22 pilot's worst mistake would be to try to dogfight the Fokker. Slow, light aircraft turn in such a small area that there is no contest there. Then again, with even a little common sense, the F-22 pilot pulls to the vertical and the Fokker is unable to do anything anymore. This not taking into account the likely disintegration of the Fokker due to the forces emitted by the F-22 close by... A funny thought experiment in any case.

The Jester is discussed around other places as well... not every discussion translates to these forums. Secondly, not every user follows facebook, so this might be missed information for many. I read the post when it was fresh out of the oven, but I really don't have anything to add to that right now. It is all fine, but flooding the forums with "this is awesome" and/or concerned comments is the exact way information gets buried. Everyone is of course allowed to post, but I wouldn't feel bad if they don't. EDIT: I think you gentlemen read a bit too harshy into what I noted above. As the third paragraph states in the beginning: "It is all fine". I did not mean that as a "do as I say". It was but a comment. See what I did here punk? I answered your post without creating an additional post. Touché. *EDIT: And RaceFuel85, I would not call a general comment as complaining. I made an observation. If I were to complain, the wording would be along the lines of "Too many people just flood the forums with unnecessary comments and bury information, and you want more of it. Stop!" There is a difference. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

A little side tangent - but in fact in ye-olden days, way before radio navigation aircraft flew over seas at night by way of airway lighthouses... So even though functioning lighthouses would not be at all a priority, they would be a nice nod toward the early days of air-navigation.

Seems that the wings come off and it actually affects something... unlike in the Hawk. Hope is high for a chance of getting this bird in half a month.

Agreed, Stuge, Unless latency is minimal and packet loss doesn not exist close formation is horrible to look at. When flying in close formation with less than 5 meter separation there is no room for for this. None. And close formation isn't even the core of DCS, which WVR combat is. I'm not as good as to suffer from this yet, but I can certainly see the problem. It is equally problematic trying to shoot down a stuttering or warping target, especially with aircraft that cannot employ radar for a guns solution. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That is true sadly... though I would still like to hold a candle of hope and not go down that route. Razbam has delivered thus far. Yes I know the Mirage is still incomplete, but from what I've heared from my squadmates, the aircraft is still quite the fighter and mostly works as intended. My interpretation on the "we are on schedule" post is, that Razbam is on the schedule revealed to us = Q3 early access release. I turn the dial only if things go south. There's enough negativity left right and center in life as it is.