Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bbrz

  1. The real one has a pretty bad L/D ratio of 7 in clean config at 160km/h. With the gear and flaps down it decreases to 5.5.
  2. Nowhere did I write this. IMO the Yak is IMO the best aircraft to learn/train aerobatics in DCS. You are again misinterpreting what I wrote! You wrote: It also allows the player to experiment with maneuvers at a lower rate of speed in a plane that is arguably easier to recover in I replied that lower speed (energy) makes performing aerobatics more difficult than higher speeds (and/or a higher power to weight ratio) Lower speed doesn't imply that it's easier to recover from mishandled maneuvers. It's almost the opposite. Lower speeds/energy means less room for error. Aerobatics in a C152 are a lot more difficult than e.g. in an Extra. (at least IRL)
  3. I don't know if you are trolling or just intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote. Anyway, it's obvious that a further discussion with you doesn't make any sense. I'm out. Bye.
  4. I don't know why you are including the CEII in this thread. (and you conveniently omitted the fact that the CEII weighs 50% less than the Yak) It's you who mentioned aerobatic competitions. Both aircraft aren't suitable for such events and not even remotely comparable to real high performance aerobatic aircraft like the Su29 or Extra 300L. Why on earth should someone expect a Yak-52 to handle the same way a CEII does? Did you even comprehend what I wrote? The DCS Yak-52 doesn't handle like the real in important areas. While these details might not be important in military aircraft which serve a very different basic purpose (I don't even see the term FLIGHT in DCS), they are IMO essential in a trainer aircraft which should teach you realistic aircraft handling.
  5. Very light? It's the heaviest aircraft for aerobatics I can think of! Weight is your worst enemy in aerobatics, especially when combined with a mediocre power to weight ratio like in the Yak-52. It severely limits your upward maneuvers, but at the same time it accelerates like crazy when pointing straight down. I haven't used DCS since quite some time, but the last time I checked it, e.g. gyroscopic precession was missing. IRL, (according to the Yak-52 pilots I've talked to) this means that you need to apply a considerable amount of rudder (especially on the Yak with its heavy and large prop) during the initial pull up. You have to be really careful that the pull up is perfectly straight without a hanging wing. You don't need to do this in the DCS Yak.
  6. I don't agree that the Yak takes off more like a jet. Lower speed means lower energy which in turn makes aerobatics (energy management) a lot more difficult than in faster and higher powered aircraft. Aerobatics in the DCS Yak will teach you wrong techniques, even very basic maneuvers like a loop due to missing basics in the flight model.
  7. I'm not a fan of the DCS Yak52. Not only because of it's unfinished state, but mainly due to the lack of realism in basic areas concerning the flight model. Even MSFS is more realistic in some areas.
  8. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
  9. What do you need it for if I may ask?
  10. What? Simply compare the pictures in more detail and you will notice that your assumption is wrong. Again, IRL the pedals almost don't move for rudder movement. The way too large movement is the bug in the DCS F-16, not the direction of motion. I agree that this WWI biplane like movement looks very bad and IRL you couldn't even apply the brakes with the pedals deflected. I don't know why ED still hasn't fixed this issue, especially since it's obviously a quick and easy fix.
  11. These DIY pedals have a completely different mechanics. (parallelogram). Did you compare them with the original pedal photos? Looks like on the real aircraft it's a simple straight bar between the pedals with the pivot point at the center. If I understand the diagram mvgas posted correctly, the 45° is about the brakes motion, not the rudder movement.
  12. Looking at the photos mvgas and you posted, it seems that the general movement is correct in the DCS version, it's just that the travel is approx 99% too large. I don't see where these pedals could move parallel?!?
  13. That's the way they sound (without helmet). https://youtu.be/K88r1CMOh0o?t=320 Since e.g. the TF30 is a totally different engine I assume that it's doesn't sound similar.
  14. You are correct. I've reported this bug right after the initial release. But as 5ephir0th pointed out, the actual range of movement is only very small IRL due to the pressure sensors. (similar to the sidestick)
  15. The 2.7 J85 sounds definitely much more realistic, from what I remember IRL a few decades ago.
  16. What is the problem? Even without wheel brakes the nose will start to drop.
  17. Don't forget that 13° is already the upper limit. Flying the approach at 11° and slowing down to 13° for touchdown is perfectly fine. I don't understand what the catch is with the three point attitude? Lowering the nose should be controlled with the wheel brakes while keeping the stick fully aft.
  18. As mentioned before, spool up for the go around case isn't the reason or a factor. The reason is that the F100-PW-200 has a slightly better throttle response at higher RPM, hence with the boards speed control is a tad easier. The -220 and the F110-GE-100 the difference is basically negligible.
  19. Doesn't the opposite one deflect down and increase lift, so the total amount of lift doesn't significantly change? A loss of lift usually occurs with roll spoilers.
  20. Spool up time isn't a factor anymore since many decades. Idle to mil could take >10sec with first generation jets. More recent engines like the Hornets 1970s F404, require less than 3.5sec.
  21. The higher the speed, the more effective the speedbrakes (applies to all aircraft). If the boards aren't extended already on final, extend them as soon as you touch down.
  22. I did have this problem as well and I love flying the F-5 in bad weather since it is very immersive and realistic! If there are no procedures, I've designed a let down which works with basically all TACAN equipped aircraft/airfields.
  23. Not only due to GLOC, also due to aerodynamic reasons e.g. consecutive aileron rolls are a no-go on many combat aircraft, e.g. the F-15.
  • Create New...