bbrz

Just tested and I'm not sure if the drag of the windmilling engine is high enough on the DCS F/A-18. (or if idle thrust of the operating engine is high enough). At 17000ft at 220kts the ROD was 2900-3000fpm with both engines at idle, and with one engine shutdown the ROD increased by ~200fpm. That seems to be rather optimistic considering that the total fuel flow is reduced by 50%.

Erm, idle RPM doesn't have any effect on performance.

Sorry, you are correct, but no need to get upset ;)

(At least) the A-10A/C, the Viggen and the MiG-15 are also affected by temperature changes. No throttle or RPM difference at different OATs...at least on the F-5.

Regardless if the radome is new, old, dirty or not, in no case there is a green hue.

Words spoken by a true FBW computer kid generation pilot. So you will never enjoy flying the superb F-5 or the very nice MiG-15. Gauges everwhere? Not more than in the F/A-18 but contrary to the Hornet you don't have to push various buttons first to get the necessary info when you need it;) @NevSmith, you are correct about the F-16s FWB but the completely undisturbed visibilty is unmatched. Promised, it will be a totally new experience to fly, either very low and fast or in a vertical climb. The 360° view is breathtaking...as are the F-16s visuals.

This fact is rather obvious since almost a month now. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3949251&postcount=21 Maybe the OP only flies in MP.

Again, it's the high frequency that makes it unrealistic. The shaking is being caused by the runway/taxiway bumps IRL, hence it occurs at a low frequency. If the shaking occurs at such a high frequency as in the DCS Su-25 it means that you have a tire failure, or at higher speed a shimmy damper failure, at least IRL. In both cases this has nothing to do with the ability to read the instruments.

On e.g. the Typhoon the radome isn't painted at all and its composite material color changes (darkens) faster than the camo. The UK Typhoons are painted BS626 and the radome has initialy the same color. The radom darkens over time and the difference in color between the airplane and its radome noticable increases. On the US F-16 the sources vary between FS26231 (RGB 132,136,137) and 36251 (136/139/139) which als almost a perfect neutral grey.

Although the F-16 is my favourite airplane and I've got many books etc. about heir, I didn't know about sidestick axis or the neck problems. Very interesting info, thanx :)

Totally forgot about my own 'proficiency check' mission in the F-5. Take off from Mozdok with full internal fuel, 3 275gal tanks, 2 AIM-9s and 100% gun rounds. TOW 21900lbs. Left or right throttle idle and fuel cut off at 200kts. Reland at Mozdok (without jettisoning anything of course)....OAT +25°C....noticable more difficult than at 0°C or even 15°C.

Because I'm asking a question about technical details? Seriously? @dawgie79 A personal preference and/or connection is a great thing, like e.g. Top Gun in DCS. The F-14 was the most advanced and most impressive plane when I was young. Once the Heatblur flies as it should and knowing that I can silence the ballast in the back, I will fly it. A few month ago I've seen an F/A-18 with the updated software perform at an airshow and it was incredible impressive to watch, the high AoA maneuvering unbelieveable. Unfortunately it doesn't look even remotely impressive on a video. If I would have to make the choice what to fly IRL the F/A-18 would be a no brainer. Both are meant to be the best killing machines, nothing else and as a pilot I would want to fly the best airplane with the lowest workload and (almost) carefree handling qualities. I wouldn't care at all if it handles/feels lifeless like a videogame or like a 'real' airplane. And last but not least I fully agree with Deano87 that the F-16 beats both....in DCS that is....except for the F-5. Still the most enjoyable plane for me in DCS and since the F-16 is FBW, it can't be beaten ;)

?

130 vs 145 is close? I'm designing FMs for other sims since decades and any greater deviation than 3kts, especially at such low speeds, is not even remotely acceptable. That said, Heatblur is already aware of this issue. As soon as they fix this bug, I'll buy it.

That's a copy and paste from WindyTX yesterdays post: Downwind on an ISA day Jet weighs almost exactly 50k I emptied the gun and 6K of fuel.On speed AOA appears to be 145kts whereas NATOPs has it at 130. This seems to be since the last update and on a hot day in PG at 50K you almost need Mil power downwind. Am I missing something ? ----- The high AoA departure behavior posted by ChockP51 looks rather strange as well, but there's too little info on this issue yet.

Have you checked if the difference changes with altitude?

I know, but I didn't know that the simple FM isn't affected by temperature. Furthermore I can do the performance tests only with the AI planes, since most of them are only available as AI.

Interesting. Maybe FM related? Have to recheck ASAP! I'm always testing with AI aircraft, so this might be the reason. Since the AI planes already outperform their human controlled counterparts, this would make matters even worse in hot and high conditions :(

Barometric altitude is just that. It has nothing to do with temp correction etc. IRL you have to use correction tables if the temperature is significant below ISA, since you will be flying too low if you don't 'manually' apply the temperature correction.

Nice to know. Just a few weeks ago I wanted to start new takeoff performance calibration flights and found out that a different temperature doesn't change anything.

This works in no airplane in DCS and IRL it doesn't either. Altimeters have only a small adjustment range and in 90% of the world you are not setting the altimeter to zero at the airfield (QFE) but you are setting the actual field elevation (QNH). DCS still uses QFE since day 1 and at high altitudes the main drawback when trying to use QFE becomes obvious ;)

Unfortunately any temp deviation from ISA still has zero effect on aircraft performance in DCS.

The problem with the F-14 is that the present FM seems to be questionable in a few areas, which is bad if don't want to shoot, but only fly. Still waiting for a more realistic MiG-21 FM since many years, so I'll wait until the F-14 (and maybe even the MiG-21) FM are corrected.

The KAI T-50, Yak 130, Leonardo T-100 and the Boeing T-X, all these trainers are FBW planes. Flying just the minimum hrs during training with a low performance basic trainer isn't what I had in mind when I wrote my previous post. ;) All the copilots I've flown with in the last few years are flying the A320 as their first airliner and I doubt that they will ever have a chance to fly a non FBW airliner. They will most likely never experience how e.g. a heavy 767 'feels'.

That's great news, thanx :) The Hornet is like most other FBW airplanes. When I flew my first FBW plane IRL I was surprised that the feel is basically completely gone. It's like painting by numbers and I pity the poor pilots who never had a chance to fly 'real' airplanes.