bbrz

I have no idea how anyone can claim that the acceleration is 'wrong' due to a 0.5sec 'error'.

Nevertheless an idle EGT of 200°C is very unrealistic for any jet engine. As Chuck_Henry wrote (can be easily verified by various F-5 cockpit videos), the idle EGT should be well above 400°C.

Since a light F-16C needs only 1100ft landing distance with a 40kts headwind, a Nimitz-class carrier is 1090ft long and can make at least 30kts, you would need just 15kts wind...if the brakes would be as effective as on the real F-16.;)

Nevertheless it should be mentioned that the total lenght of a Nimitz-class carrier is 1090ft and the landing distance of a F-16C @ 20000lbs with 40kts WOD is only 1100ft.... ;)

Suggest to try and compare the F-16 to the very old F-15 module and you will notice that the F-15 is as unrealistic as the F-16 in crosswind conditions. That's why I fear that this problem might not be solved at all from the ED side.

No, it doesn't tell any story. 25kts is a basically a standard 'limit' for most aircraft. It's not about smoothness and pushing off the crab angle means definitely more, not less fuss. Furthermore removing the crab at or prior the flare, can/will cause control difficulties due to the FBW logic.

How do you know that 25kts is the actual aircraft limit without any margin etc.? Why should you take out half the crab if the manual tells you to land with fully crabbed? Btw, the higher friction coefficient would only apply in a 3 point attitude with full WOW.

Wow, VERY nice mod!!!!

Seriously? Must be a bug since the sole purpose of DCS for most users is to kill and destroy.

Furthermore cruise performance tables are, for obvious reasons, always in TAS (sometimes IAS/CAS/MN is included). From the P-51 via the C-150 to the A380.

Well, this idea isn't that unrealistic. https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/v-1600-the-carrier-capable-f-16-that-wasnt/

And just guess WHY!!!! You apparently didn't notice that your unwilligness to understand how things actually work are the main reason why this thread goes on and on.

Well, in this case any further discussion is definitely useless. I'm starting to believe that you and The Falcon are actually twins. Over and out.

Sorry but that's plain and simple wrong. Have you even looked at turn performance tables?

You honestly believe that the turn radii are identical when turning into a 100kts tailwind and into a 100kts headwind?

And how is it possible that the performance section of the manuals can do that with IAS?

NO! How on earth do you calculate the turn radius without knowing the wind direction?!?

Exactly, but then we are talking about IAS again and not TAS. Since the wind is usually blowing in only one direction and you and your opponent are hopefully not flying in formation, you turn radius and lead angle calculation will be incorrect without GS and wind direction. Since this is way off topic and it's unfortunately very similar to the discussion with The Falcon, I'll let you guys continue this never ending thread on your own.

Again, once an opponent is added to the equation we are talking about position/navigation, you would 'theoretically' need to know GS and wind direction. Otherwise your whole 'calculation' will be wrong.

Thanx, I know. It was you who mentioned BFM in this context. If you start using the E6B during BFM for precision you need to take everything into account.

If you insist on calculating your turn radius precisely during a dogfight, for whatever reason, knowing the ground speed and the wind direction would be essential as well.

Maybe times have changed over the years. When we did 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 dogfights IRL we certainly didn't use the above formulae. Without any AoA gauge the only important things were our eyes and IAS. This additional TAS/performance thing doesn't do anything to help clarify things in this thread and for The Falcon in particular.

Because energy has nothing to do with groundspeed! Only IAS/CAS/TAS/EAS. Everyone in this thread is trying since many pages to explain this fact to you. I'm running out of ideas in which other way I could make you understand this very basic fact. Sorry.

And? You are talking the whole time about GS, not TAS!!!! TAS and CAS are basically identical at S.L. and both are not related the groundspeed in any way.

And that's IAS/CAS. From an aerodynamic POV the aircraft doesn't care about TAS at all.