bbrz

I don't know what you mean with 'negative static and dynamic tendencies programmed into them'. Do you mean negative static/dynamic stability? That's said, even the rather sensitive F-5 doesn't exhibit any negative stability in pitch and roll. Zero rolling tendency with e.g. the F/A-18 and the F-5. Must be your sim setup.

Contrary to the Tu 144, the Concorde needs reheat only during the acceleration, not for cruise. Nothing 'unpopular' with that.

Don't forget that you need to be behind and below to experience wake turbulence. The twin engined DA-62 which crash at DXB a few weeks ago was caused by wake turbulence from an preceeding A350 landing on the parallel runway. Experienced a 45° bank angle in a CRJ when we hit the wake turbulence from a 767.

I could only find the numbers for the T-38 (which used the same wing section) after a quick search. Vapp = 1.2 Vst = 7° true AoA with flaps 40° and 9° with flaps up.

You can't compare these two. Especially since the shape and dimensions of the Milviz T-38A and C are quite a bit off (and the default viewpoint on their T-38 is way too low as well.) Btw, the sound of the seat being raised (because they were way too slow) was one of the last things that could be heard on the CVR before the Asiana 777 crashed. So if the default viewpoint is ok, loosing sight of the runway can be a hint that there's something unusual happening ;)

As tom_19d pointed out, flying approaches with PAPI equipped runways is a good idea e.g. Batumi. Not much to learn. 2 white and 2 red is correct. Since you don't need the correct 'civil' threshold clearance, even 3 red and 1 white is acceptable, but I would initially stay with 2+2. The lower below the 3deg glidepath you are, the more red lights you will see. Hence the saying (if you forget which color is the 'safe' one): red over red, you are dead. I'm flying with the default viewpoint and I don't have any problem in seeing the aimpoint. I also tend to fly with both AoA indexers illuminated. On speed + too fast. This gives you bit of an additional speed margin for a nice flare. If you can't see your aimpoint, chances are that your approach is too shallow (and hence a too high pitch attitude). Btw, the correct glidepath is easy to calculate; your speed divided by 2 times 10. E.g 150kts / 2 x 10 = 750ft/min.

That's a bit of an over simplification. The pitch moment depends a lot on speed, C.G., wing/tail interaction, altitude etc. E.g. on a certain jet transport you need a 21lbs push when going from 0 to full flaps in one case, and under different conditions you need a 9lbs pull for the same configuration change. As tom_19d pointed out, the flap/stab interconnect plays a role on the F-5 as well. Again, looking at the real world video the trim changes seem to be minimal. I don't agree that the available amount of trim automatically implies that the trim range is correct.

Ouch, the wing down technique might work for a Cessna 152 but on larger/faster airplanes and especially on jets you generally use the crab method. If you decide to land without crab, you (and even the AP) earliest starts to take the crab angle out below 100-150ft. When landing manually you usually decrab during the flare and also land with an (almost) wing level attitude. Since the rudder induces a significant roll moment on the F-5, it's imperative to fly the approach with the correct wind correction angle applied and to land with the full crab angle. The wings must be level! The F-5 is definitely not an airplane which is suitable for the wings low technique (and on an airliner the passengers wouldn't be happy either ;) )

You can maybe rotate and have to apply a bit of forward stick pressure initially, but latest after the first trim application you are back in trim. With my significantly less nose up trim I need almost full aft stick as well to start the rotation. Can't remember if there's a note in the F-5 manual, but the F-15 manual specifically states to use full aft stick for a high performance take off. Normal takeoffs require half aft stick. That's one of the reasons why I apply more nose down trim, because I don't like the combination of very little required aft stick for rotation and the need to immediately retrim a lot. That doesn't make much sense to me, it feels weird/loose and especially not stable. Having to apply a bit aft stick feels much nicer IRL and more stable than having to apply forward or no stick pressure. AFAIK the Blue Angles even fly their F/A-18 with additional required aft stick pressure.

Why would you need the rudder on final? Heading corrections are always done with the ailerons because it's lift that makes an airplane turn, nothing else. So you need to bank the airplane to make it turn. Applying rudder only turns the nose but doesn't (immediately) change the track. Even on planes like the F-5, where the rudder rolls the airplane (especially at higher AoA), the ailerons are the only means to do corrections on approach. I absolutely love the precise and slightly nervous handling, using linear control and a 15% curve.

Nope. That's extremely unlikely. IF there's a difference in stick position its' because he applies slight aft stick pressure before rotation and after rotation he releases the stick pressure.

Thanx a lot to Wags and the whole team for this unique sim and their dedication! If I'm complaining about various airplane bugs it's not because I love to complain, it's because I don't want ED or other add-on developers to stop developing at 95%, so I keep on pushing ;) That said, even at 80-90% completion, DCS planes IMO outclass all other sims and their planes. It's the only sim that continuosly and reliable brings back the feeling of flying high performance jets :)

That's great news. Just re-installed DCS :) :) Thanx

Since the F-5 and most other high performance jets are using a low moment wing section (NACA65A004.8 in case of the F-5) I don't know where the large moment changes would come from which would require large pitch/trim changes. If you look at this video you will see that this guy applies just a few short clicks after unstick during the acceleration/climb out. Given the low pitch attitude, the speed increase must be rather high. https://youtu.be/gBmL1DNgobE?t=28 That said. I never complained about the trim in the DCS F-5, it was just an observations that this might be incorrect and it can be easily 'corrected' by just trimming a few units nose down. It's still the only module I regulary fly and really enjoy doing so. If they could fix the new horrible lighting problem in the VC (and the engines) it would be great!

1. If you take e.g. the 767 (and most other Boeings) you have a minimum clean maneuvering speed of Vref +80kts which means that if e.g. V2 is 165kts, the minimum clean speed is 259kts and there's very little re-trimming required, even when acceleration to 330kts for climb. It's similar in the Saab 105 and all the other jets I've flown (and the F-5 cockpit videos) 2. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that while the numbers might be correct, the trim effect maybe isn't and without a dedicated performance table speed vs stab trim, it's rather difficult to know how it should be. Don't forget that the DCS F-5 isn't perfect, e.g. with the very strange and rather serious tailwind/headwind performance bug.

Again, the amount of trim you have to apply after unstick to accelerate from 150kts to only e.g. 250kts seems to be excessive. If you rotate at 140kts, get the gear up and pitch up to 20-30deg, the F-5 will do a loop on its own if you don't re-trim. I've never flown an F-5 IRL but none of the jets I've flown exhibited this behavior.

The automatic trim setting results in slightly less than the obstacle clearance speed as a trimmed speed, which is under these conditions approx 160kts. I don't know where Belsimtek got the info from that this is what should happen and if this is what Northrop designed, but looking at RW F-5 cockpit videos I don't see any significant or prolonged trim input after unstick until reaching climb speed. That's also much more in line with my RW experience. The amount of required nose down trim after unstick during acceleration seems to be excessive.

When starting the mission with the engines running I have to trim a lot nose down before take off, since the automatic trim doesn't correspond at all with my usual loadout (clean + 50% fuel). I usually trim like IRL so that I need only minor trim corrections for the initial climb. I definitely don't want to fight an ever increasing pitch attitude after unstick.

Yes. Even without time compression during a single basic traffic pattern the replay can easily show a different track than actually flown. Sometimes the plane even crashes already during take off in the replay! This problem exists since decades.

+1 Most likely Ala13 ManOWar isn't doing any demanding precision aerobatics.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=238273

It's interesting that multi player performance and damage modelling is considered to be more important than the flight model. DCS is unquestionable the flightsim with the best flight modelling, but even the rather primitive Yak has still some glaring errors in the basic flight model like the: unrealistic barn door flaps which make a go around impossible and approaches with realistic power settings) and the wrong RPM/MP relationship, and MP gauge. I'm not even talking about the more advanced aerodynamic problems like the newly discovered negative AoA behavior.

That's the plane I'm waiting for! Finally going to re-install DCS...one day before the F-16 will be released :)

Wrong again, the 'tiny box' is much smaller than the 'black box' and it's black.

That's incorrect. I don't have a Gladiator base and I simply used the PC USB port via the tiny box. It wouldn't make much sense for VKB to sell pedals without the ability to use them with different joysticks.