=475FG= Dawger

Do not open the radio menu or the rearm/refuel menu until the second engine air message is verbalized in the autostart. It screws with the autostart. It is because the autostart is calling the ground crew to do things and having that menu open prevents those things from happening. My custom autostart script for the F-5 has a message reminding the user "DO NOT REARM/REFUEL" until the second engine is cranking. Once that second motor is rolling you can do what you like

Same manual, Section VI, page 6-3 Good luck.

Which post are you referring to?

Putting aside the rather obvious fact that the F-5 would not have survived 5 decades in service if this modeling was anything resembling reality, other aircraft are not modeled in the same fashion. Another module with nearly identical limitations verbiage does not suffer from catastrophic wing failures. The issue with the F-5 is a combination of several factors. The limitations have been very poorly interpreted. An example is the limitations stating that FULL aileron deflection is prohibited under condition X yet minor aileron deflection will crack the wings off. The idea that catastrophic failure of the major structural component of a BRAND NEW tactical aircraft would occur precisely 1.5 times the limit the very first time said limit is reached without failure of weaker structures first is ludicrous. No one would fly the aircraft much less take it into a dogfight. There is some very suspect modeling. The aircraft will show high “G” before the nose moves. This is backwards from the physics. The indication of acceleration must occur before the instrument measuring said acceleration can display it. We are two years into this debacle with zero chance of its reversal. The egos involved prevent any honest evaluation with the potential for admission of error. The poor DCS F-5 struggles on with its glass wing, sawed off shotgun weapon dispersion, suspect flight control modeling and strange RWR implementation, fighting third party produced modules whose wings don’t break, guns shoot straight as lasers, and fire radar missiles fully capable of “look down, shoot down” years before their existence in reality. Personally, I will not buy anything but a third party module now. They are a labor of love and aren’t going to be subjected to a sudden update that makes the wings fall off. No third party developer could take the hit to his heart or wallet.

The F-86 requires that the emergency nose gear extension control valve be reset on the ground to restore the landing gear system to proper operation. The repair requirement is correct.

Fences are to prevent spanwise flow and redirect the flow to maintain control effectiveness at high AOA As you can see, other Sabre wings used leading edge devices (slats) to control high AOA flow on the outboard wing.

Having flown some WWII era aircraft out in the real world, I can assure you that what is modeled in DCS is a very lightweight version of the real thing. The classic P-51 demonstration of "torque effects" was to slow to 130 with flaps and gear down and idle power and then push the power to 61 quickly. This was done at altitude because the aircraft would quickly invert itself. In DCS, you can go stop to stop with the throttle at low speeds and the aircraft basically wallows a little bit unless you drop below 100 mph, where it does a rather gentle left wing stall. It certainly isn't an exciting event. Here is the quote http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/p51pr.htm You cannot get the DCS P-51 to do anything resembling the above and the rest are similarly toned down.

From a flying standpoint, absolutely. Jets, especially tactical jets, are progressively easier to fly so that the crew can focus on employing it as a weapon. A WWII era propeller driven fighter is not optimized with the pilot in mind although late war versions are better than earlier. DCS WWII aircraft fly like jets, which is incorrect.

That is just an indication of how poorly modeled DCS WWII modules really are. High powered propeller driven aircraft are more challenging to fly than any jet and the newer the jet, the easier it gets.

The only official position I know of is “we are happy with the spotting”. I have never seen it acknowledged that there is even an issue to be addressed.

Yesterday, I was able to easily spot dots at 35 nautical miles yet a Mig-21 across my turn circle in a high speed fight will de-render as I am padlocked on it. My wingman is invisible against the blue sky at 3 miles. Same as it ever was. DCS essentially erases aircraft at certain ranges. Lighting is wrong. Aircraft don’t properly silhouette against blue sky or clouds in the mid-ranges. Against the ground, they just get blended into the background. Up close they are fine and out where they are rendered as a black dot they are easily seen. DCS fails inside of 10 miles up to a few miles for jets and a mile for WWII fighter sized aircraft. The only thing that helps is turning settings down to 1973 Pong

That is generally too cold for carburetor icing. Carburetor icing occurs in high humidity conditions when the air entering the venturi throat rapidly cools and the moisture contained freezes. -12 C is too cold for this to be likely. You can see that the chart for carb ice doesn't even go down to -12 NOTE: This is for information only and not meant to reflect on the accuracy of DCS modeling.

Reading all that, I think its a flux gate compass and ED has the modeling wrong. Nice job digging all that up.

@kablamoman The parts catalog you posted lists it as a remote indicating magnetic compass, which isn’t a flux gate compass. If it truly is a magnetic compass mounted remotely it would still suffer from all the errors associated with a magnetic compass. If it is a misnamed flux gate, then it is likely modeled incorrectly. From reading the parts list, I’d say it is a magnetic compass and ED has the modeling essentially correct.

Although I seriously doubt its modeled in DCS, the apparent drift of a gyro compass at 48 degrees North Latitude is 11.5 degrees per hour or a degree every 5.2 minutes. Also, at low power settings, the vacuum source for the instrument may not be providing enough suction to keep the gyro spinning at the proper speed. Also, who knows if this is modeled. I wouldn't bother setting it until after takeoff and be sure you are in straight and level flight when doing so. Even then it is still going to drift and we really have no clue how this is modeled. However, pretend it is a worn out gyro subjected to much abuse and its behavior is entirely realistic. I seriously doubt many of them actually worked in 1944 after a few sorties.

Maneuvering with an uncaged gyro of that era will tumble it and make it have very large errors. A directional gyro has an apparent drift in degrees of 15 x Sine of the Latitude/Hour Air driven gyros have vanes that drive the gyro that wear over time or are damaged in maneuvers while uncaged, causing rapid real drift. I have seen directional gyros drift at a degree per second and one caused a quite funny, if extremely dangerous, incident on the Little Rock tower frequency involving my then boss many moons ago.

No, its actually really silly.

Leveling lugs are devices attached to the aircraft that allow the maintenance crew to use a spirit level to adjust the aircraft to level. Useful for various procedures. Looks like sight adjustment uses the line created by those lugs as a reference.

Just a guess, but realistic comms may be enforced and you need to use the aircraft radio.

A good landing is one you walk away from. A great landing is one after which you can use the airplane again for its intended purpose.

Its pretty easy to make a custom Papier-mâché canopy to put over your head to get the ultimate in realistic head limits for VR.

This is mostly driven by folks who think VR is some sort of advantage and seek to make it miserable to use.

Don’t let the responses above mine fool you. The F-5 structural limits are modeled very badly. As an example, the Mirage F1 has very similar limits in its manual yet it is much harder to rip the wings off. At a minimum, the modeling is wildly inconsistent. Which one is more accurate? Well, the F-5/T-38 has been in service for decades and does not have any sort of a reputation for structural failure. You may draw your own conclusions from the available information.

It sounds like the nosewheel isnt straight at brake release. Taxi forward a few feet with NWS off prior to initiating your standing takeoff procedure.