Fortinero

You actually can avoid breaking the engine (in DCS, not in real life), like people said, using the manual pitch, real problem is, not only devs missing the fact of the 3050 RPM overspeed limit is not so short, but also how the Jug behavs in the dive and how compresibility is NOT modeled, so fighters like the 109 in DCS will not suffer his effects and will keep with you.

+1

I also have the 21 since the beggining, when Leatherneck was complete, in fact was the reason of why I get using DCS, but since a few years I do not use it anymore due the lack of mantainance. Recently my only wish is that the F4U get released and then probably have to wait a few years of slowly patches, and not cuz I am interested in the Corsair module at all, even being it a plane wich I like, but cuz I still have some hope that the MiG gets the maintanance it deserves.

I have the same issue.

I think your work is stunning, may I ask for the links of those 100% historical skins, without this nonsense censored tail marks?

All good, but right now is not even "10% more", is at least a 12% less, so, seems wrong having in mind all what everyone posted about this topic, one could think than the Hornet in DCS should be burning around a 22% more fuel in afterburner than the how it does now. The current state, you can fast check it in game, take a Viper and a Hornet with same fuel, lets say 3000lbs each and burn at the same altitude for on minute and watch what's left in each one main tanks, just for having an aproximation.

Where I said that the Hornet have "200% greater fuel consumption"? I will write it again: in DCS, the F-18, burns less fuel in afterburner, than the F-16. Yes, the F404 is more efficient engine, is smaller (770kg less than F110, I answered what you referenced about size), but not 50% more efficient, so, why two of them, in afterburner, burns less fuel per minute (almost 12%) than one single F110 in afterburner in DCS?

Dude, the F110-GE-129 weights 770kg more than the F404, and both F404 with burners still consumes 12% less than a single F110... the user captain_dalan exposed great info about this behavior already.

Cuz the Hornet has two engines...

I think that Anton is very abandoned by ED, I bought it in good faith and the truth is that I am very disappointed, I made the decision not to buy anything else from ED until they dedicate the time they deserve to modules like this one. IL2 offers to me a better representation of this aircraft, with the power she had and different setup and weapon configuration.

I was about to do the same post but now, in 2023, in short, was there any change in these years? Basically, doing tests nowadays, taking into account that the F/A-18C Lote20 that is modeled in DCS uses the F404-GE-402, about which there is a lot of public information circulating around, so I am not going to put much data, only a a rough calculation I did with all that info, just say that this engine in burner, it consumes 10% less than the F110-GE-129 and weighs 70% less too, even so, in the game, the Hornet with two engines in burners burns 12% less than the Viper with one engine. My common sense tells me that the Hornet should burn almost twice as much as the Viper...

Hey mate, seems that, both what you described, plus the fact of not sticking your head out through the plexiglass of a supersonic jet is not important at all, not even being something that has been like this since day one of launch, priorities...

Mate, it seems we're not going to have any answer even as logical it sounds from our point of view, at least, we could get an explanation of what's the functionality of this, cuz I can't find it, "correct as is" is a nonsense feature of the jet.

"Positioning the switch outboard short (less than .5 sec) selects NONE and removes all datalink tracks. Selecting outboard short again returns to the previously selected filter option." That's the description of the filter NONE, what we get in game now is that not only the datalink tracks are removed but also the radar returns, so, what's the use, or the partical functionallity of this filters? Common sense says that in the FCR page I can remove the symbols that the D/L provides, that also are shown in the HSD page, but why I would want remove also the little radar contact bricks returns?

Yeah, once at home I will record a track file.

Anyways, the comm switch cycles through the D/L filters for the FCR, why in TGTS or NONE you can't get any radar return and see the bricks? But able to TMS UP and bug a target in the FCR page as SOI looking at the D/L HSD contacts, it makes no sense.

This is still a thing since release, unpleasant at this point, as well the 2D sticky textures in the cockpit plexiglass. server-20221030-164940.trk

That's awesome, I already saw that video and many other, I love so much the Jug, I readed many of the NACA reports, and whatever could find about that beauty of plane. I really like the DCS module, but, I would love to see get it better, I know that seems that ww2 is not a priority for ED by now, so well, I guess we will have to have patience.

There are reports that below 15000 ft the Jug barely starts to get some control authority in order to recover the plane, and still, there are cases of pilot losts due compressibility, and, I insist, I ran many tests, and never in DCS I could reproduce compressibility effect. In IL2 the compressibility effect is a factor, in DCS is not, even blowing the engine up in order to get the speed further more than 500 - 510 mph, cuz if I control manually the RPM and of course I keep the manifold on the limits, nothing happens even in a 90° dive to the deck...

I know what is his function, "compressibility recovery flaps", anyways, I dive steeply from higher altitudes than 30k ft, and still have plenty of control of the surfaces and I'm able always, of recover the plane. I never in this sim, I never hit compressibility, it does not matter what I do.

So in combat, I have to deactivate the propeller governor and manually, using the same switch that is in a non very ergonomically position in the meanwhile you're trying to dive away from an 109 at your six using a maneuver that mades, besides others things, the Jug famous as one, or, the best diver in the ww2, so I have to manually controls the RPM by that switch, but as instance, in the Fw-190A8 you don't have to disable the propeller governor automation switch, or kommandogerät, and you don't have to control manually the prop pitch using the rocker switch in the throttle in a step dive. Also, what's the meaning of the air brake in the D-30 if even, after have been destroyed my engine and let the aircraft accelerate further more of the 500mph critical speed, and I still have plenty of control of the surfaces to recover it? like in almost all the ww2 modules in DCS... I think that there is a few things that needs some reviewing.

Why does not happens with the radial BMW engine of the A8 in DCS then?

This is still be a thing, yersterday I did tested dive performance in all ww2 modules, diving from 30k ft at 60° dive angle, and non of the aircrafts except the Jug broke his engine due overspeeding the prop, keeping in auto de prop pitch, in manual does not happens. Why only affects to the P-47 and not in the P-51, Spitfire, and so on?

I'm agree

Really many of us expect some love for the Anton, even the cockpit don't get the care that is present in other modules.