=475FG= Dawger

I imagine whoever produced that for the DCS manual was copying a chart from a real world document that covered several versions of the D model and didn’t realize the Auto Rich/Auto Lean stuff weren’t relevant to the DCS module.

For those of us with good gunnery skills, I’d prefer all the rounds be grouped on the paper.

AL refers to Auto Lean, a mixture position the DCS Mustang does not have.

The DCS F-5 guns have so much dispersion as to make one wonder if they are bolted down or just rattling around in there. The M61 will be, in all possible ways, light years ahead.

Its more likely he was referring to the landing weight limit but it isn’t like the jet will break in half at that weight. It will just require a serious inspection.

G fatigue of the crew is severely misunderstood by the flight sim community. In the F-15 community, 9 G breaks are standard practice. The C model can sustain 7.5 indefinitely and the pilots can sustain this until the fuel is gone. Rapid negative/positive transitions are the only area of pilot physiological weakness I see abused online.

This is pretty much backwards. Modern fighters strive to make everything as easy as possible to free up the crew for important headwork. Only non-pilots would think MFD pages, hud symbology, radar symbology, TGP symbology and own weapon symbology make a jet “harder”. That’s all basic proficiency level stuff and all put there to make life simpler and enhance SA. The only reason simmers think modern jets are “harder” is because so much of what is really involved in flying is totally missing from the game.

The structural testing program for the F-5 expected many excursions above the 7.33 limit and, thus, tested the aircraft to this expectation over several aircraft “lifetimes” (4000 hours) Here is the graph showing what was expected and tested. You can see from the chart approximately 45 9G excursions per 1000 hours were expected with some undefined number of 9+ G excursions to also be expected. While folks here love to posit that fighter pilots rigorous adhere to prescribed procedures and limitations without deviation, there is much available evidence that isn’t the case nor is it desired. G limits are for longevity of the airframe. If you don’t expect to be using the aircraft again, limits do not apply and should be disregarded until such time that one can, once again, expect the aircraft to successfully complete its current sortie and be available for future sorties.

Drop on the muzzle flashes.

The physical position of the throttle and propeller levers in relation to each other is never relevant. The relationship to watch is manifold pressure and RPM. More specifically, avoid high MP and low RPM. Prop forward before throttle, throttle back before prop.

Fighters have become easier, not harder over time. Imagine thinking that flying a WWI box kite into deadly combat is easier than a mid-century multicrew supersonic fighter-bomber. While this might be true in “simulation” it ain’t so in real life. It just points out the glaring deficiencies in “simulation “.

The really high airports are either really short or really long. Don’t have any really high ones in DCS. Nevada might be the highest ones.

With enough runway, it will fly with whatever you can physically hang on it as long as both engines are operating. Lose one and farms are bought if operating outside established guidelines. Of course, DCS doesn’t really simulate all the high speed abort/single engine go factors since practicing all that silliness is pretty dull.

When this happens with an axis controller, reducing the thrust lever to idle and pushing it back up to afterburner corrects the problem.

Fuel flow is independent of throttle position and should indicate actual flow. Idle and back up is a DCS thing but I can tell you that its what a real pilot would do if it actually happened as it is a mechanical device and you never know what will work. It would suck in a fight.

I can confirm occasional failure to light AB on one or both engines with Warthog throttle but fuel flow always indicates lower than AB rates when it happens. Back to idle and forward always fixes it.

We started out as a group 26 years ago flying PvP only online titles. They were all guns only, WWII era. Over the years we have flown all the PvP titles, going where the fight was best, usually guns only but DCS with Alpenwolf's Cold War server, with its steady diet of guns and rear aspect only missiles, was pretty awesome(Guns and Poppas, as my longtime wingman is fond of saying). We generally avoided more advanced missiles because we have some real world aviators with concerns about disclosing classified techniques in the heat of the moment. However, some of our younger members enjoy that stuff so I dipped my toes in it just enough to discover its pretty dull from the shooter side. My wingman and I do enjoy jousting a BVR opponent as a wing pair and suckering them into a well laid trap with a guns kill finish but have no interest in shooting radar missiles. I feel the same way about most guided A/G weapons although we did have some great fun in Alpenwolf dropping Laser GBU's off a combined arms human mark. The fun there is the required teamwork to get the bomb on target and getting in and out against human opponents defending the target. Alas, those days of glory are gone. I do admit we are a very niche group, being exclusive to PvP in DCS. I take it even further, never flying without a wingman. I like the teamwork and the more teamwork the better. I'd probably enjoy flying with a human WSO but even our former WSO won't get in back (who would?) At the moment, we are almost all not flying DCS, realizing that after 2 years the F-5 was never going to be un-FUBARED. Waiting on the F-4E to, hopefully, change that.

While there are autonomous guidance torpedo versions, many are connected via an umbilical wire to the firing submarine and are guided by the firing vessel. Many of the basic strategies of SARH are remarkably similar to modern sub v. sub torpedo duels. They are more alike than dissimilar. And both are dull in a PvP environment. Subsims are engaging when unguided torpedoes are the weapon and PvP air combat is best with guns and rear aspect heaters. Of course, you are free to not agree with me.

Not really. Submarine simulator at 500 knots without the interesting mathematics. I like my sub games to be in the water.

A/A Put the thing on the thing and pull the trigger. A/G Put the thing on the thing and pickle . HUD chapter complete.

I have a pair of custom knit flying socks. I also sent my wingman a pair. Nothing worse than cold rudder pedals.

Yes.

I find radar missiles very dull. Not that they aren’t handy for making a hot bandit turn but beyond that, I’d rather watch paint dry.

As PvP BFM/WVR ACM Aficionados, my group is looking forward to the Phantom to get back to beating up on Migs. All we want are a gun and some heaters, wings that stay on during normal BFM and afterburners. I am confident HB will deliver all of the above in the next 60-90 days.

March 20.