=475FG= Dawger

You have this internet thing down already.

I wouldn’t say the importance of A2A is overstated. Without air supremacy, modern war doesn’t get much accomplished and is very bloody. It is true that there have been very few near peer air forces fighting each other in the past 75 years, so the opportunity for A2A is quite limited. In the age of intercontinental nuclear weapons, its hard to imagine a direct, conventional existential confrontation by great powers but if it did occur, the A2A battle would necessarily precede any large scale offensive operations.

IRL, all Tomcats are targets as soon as the wings move forward no matter the opponent. It isn’t quite that way in DCS, which bodes well for the Phantom, IMO.

Out in the real world, even the early F-15E easily beat the F-14’s in the slow speed realm. Described as “the absolute best pipper practice you can get” by people in a position to know. Not that I mind. I am hoping for the same treatment for the Phantom. It will be loads of fun.

I hope the F-4E is as overmodeled in a slow speed fight as the F-14. It will be a monster if it is.

VR

Still nothing on this subject...

Yes, it is quite possibly the most arcadish aspect of DCS. However, not all aircraft go straight to catastrophic wing failure. Some modules exhibit more realistic modeling. And some appear to suffer no ill effects whatsoever. Consistency is lacking.

Which is what should happen to the F-5 when it exceeds it G limit instead of catastrophic failure. Other parts would fail long before the wing, in any case.

You math is off a bit. You should use the lower figure of 94,557 at low fuel weights, which gives you 13.7 Max G at your stated 10,308 lbs empty weight. Your maximum weight to be able to sustain 13.4G is 10,584 lbs. Seems more like a Tacview glitch than anything else.

Its AI or game flight mode or something similar.

You are on the right track.

In order to assist in setting up F-5E pitch control, I would like an additional Pitch Axis Curve that allows the user to set horizontal stabilizer(HSTAB) maximum deflection rate in hundredths of degrees per second versus KIAS (Knots Indicated Airspeed). This would allow the end user to be able to better overcome the limitations of PC simulation without the benefit of a force feedback system. Of course, such a curve should not have the capacity to override existing maximum maximum deflection rates. Rather it would enable the user to slow down HSTAB deflection rates to better fit the limitations of a particular pitch control hardware setup. Thanks in advance.

The only power source for the inverter is the generator. If the generator is functioning and the inverter light is on above 45% RPM, the inverter is failed.

You could say " We will take a close look at the F-5 flight control system to be certain we have properly simulated the pilot stick forces designed into the artificial feel system which prevents rapid horizontal stabilizer deflection at high speeds" You could also say " Once we have done the above, we will also take a look at how the F-5 is able to generate 12 G's with very little nose movement as this does seem to defy real world physics" I might even believe you.

From first person reports, the pitch control stick forces in the F-5 and T-38 are pretty high. Since it is an artificial feel system, it was purposely designed that way to prevent inadvertent rapid G onset. Somewhere, there is engineering data on that artificial feel system. I wish I knew where.

Well said. The Phantom can’t get here fast enough.

Personally, I would put flaps up and down where gunsight brightness is. Flaps are sometimes useful in a fight. And I wouldn’t have the bailout button anywhere near the HOTAS. Its embarrassing to accidentally jump.

@NineLine You are not getting the point, at all. Ignore the wing breaking. It should not be possible to produce 12 G that quickly and without nose movement. So there are two issues. 1. Its too easy to generate 12 G. 2. That G comes before the aircraft is actually demonstrating the radial acceleration required. There is something wrong in the F-5 control system and/or G calculation. G is a function of radius and speed. G force cannot exist without radius. The nose must move before the G can exist. Also, the artificial feel system in the F-5 hydraulic controls would make it very difficult to even get to 12 G, much less get there that quickly. You are asking F-5 pilots to fly an aircraft from which the artificial feel system has been removed. It exists in the aircraft to prevent exactly what I demonstrated. Without force feedback, we have no artificial feel, so it must be built in the software by slowing the rate at which the HSTAB can move at speed.

@NineLine Here is my last attempt at demonstrating the issue (part of it, anyway). Two Tracks- One is the Mirage and the other is the F-5. Notice when the wing fails versus how much nose movement prior to failure. One is like a real airplane, the other isn't. Forgetting that a first time catastrophic failure is unlikely since both are failing catastrophically, the problem is the G onset and failure prior to significant nose movement with the F-5. If the F-5 behaved as the Mirage does in this track I wouldn't have heartburn about it shedding its wings in an 11G pull. I would still complain about the roll asymmetry failure but one step at a time. wingbreak1mirage.trk wingbreak1tiger.trk

Somewhere deep in this thread there is written evidence that the structural test program expected 40+ (IIRC) 9+ G events per 1000 hours and tested accordingly WITH NO ISSUES. That seems to be ignored.

Fly the F-5, go fast, pull the stick rapidly back. The wings will pop off before the nose moves 10 degrees. This means the pilot can nearly instantly generate 11+ G and catastrophically fail the aircraft before the nose moves very much. It doesn't pass any sort of basic reality check.

The issue is that other modules are not modeled this way. The Mirage F1, with nearly identical verbiage in its manual regarding structural limitations, does not crack the wings off. I actually wasted my time making 17 short tracks of how you can spike the wings off in the F-5. I see there is no need to post them. My F-5 remains parked as no one seems interested in investigating why the F-5 was singled out for this treatment 2 years ago.

I will produce some new tracks but if your response is "you are pulling a lot of G" my head will explode. Give me a few days.

Neither does either. Nothing to be gained and much to be lost for them. Me, on the other hand, have no such considerations. I flew in the civilian world for 30 years including a lot of aerobatics and some mock combat but I haven't flown an F-5 in air to air BFM.