HWasp

Further investigation with track and screenshots to be accurate: I've done a high altitude test with the following result: -at approx. M0.6 elevator neutral -between M0.7 and somewhere M0.85 relatively strong nose down elevator is needed for level flight. -Over M0.85 there is less nose down elevator needed. But it is still nose down elevator So altogether some mach tuck can be felt, and in the right direction, on contrary to my previous post, but it seems much weaker than in a previous version (really unsure when it was exactly). I did not find anything regarding this behaviour in the DCS flight manual. Mig-15 Mach tuck.trk

Edit: See second post! Also proper thread name would be weaker mach tuck instead of reversed. At high mach numbers (0,8+) plane developes nose up tendency instead of nose down. In previous versions (no idea when it changed) the behaviour was correct: nose down due to mach tuck. Please investigate track in second post.

They said they will include the S version later as a bonus.

Sounds good! That 0,0001% is the value for actually pressing the "release" button right? :)

Yes, of course the F-5 has lots of nice features, but I was talking about sustained turn performance at that given speed range. Getting low and slow with the Mig will probably be a bad idea.

My uneducated guess: The Mig-19 will have a slightly lower top speed, but it will accelerate better. Also probably it will be best to stay between 600-800 km/h somewhere and try to use the superior (hopefully) sustained turn performance. At least this is what comes to mind for me just by looking at it. :) We'll see... tomorrow maybe?

I'd love to hear some (good) news about Mig-19s progress to release. How's it going? I was expecting to fly it already this weekend :)

Why is it so damn hard to google “Mig21bis flight manual” (the real one, it’s available in English, second or third search result!!!!) and compare that to what we have now instead of some totally useless subjective quotes like “it should be nimble” and cr.p like that? :doh: If people would do that, maybe we could talk about the real problems like edge of envelope stuff, stall behavior and such... So real problems instead of the bs: 1. According to the manual at higher AoA aileron effectiveness should decrease considerably (p.14). I don’t see this modeled, I can roll the plane at high AoA edge of the stall no problem. 2. At even higher AoA a rocking from wing to wing developes and increases as AoA increases according to the book (p.15). This is also not modeled. 3.The stall itself looks like some weird scripted behavior, especially from the outside. 4. There is a very long text in the manual about stability problems with some loadouts at some fuel levels (typically rather heavy air to ground stuff). Never experienced any stability issues due to loadout in DCS. 5. Engine just simply flames out at a pre defined speed. This is quite a simplistic approach to enforce the limitations isn’t it? 6. Maximum time in second (emergency) reheat is 3 minutes due to turbine strength. I have never had an engine failure due to this limitation, and I always use the second reheat due to obvious performance reasons. 7. From the manual p.138: “If the control stick is not set neutral immediately after the onset of the stall (3-4sec) the plane will start oscillating about it’s 3 axes unsteadily with high lateral G forces” It’s not doing that. 8. Manual p.141: So called “inertia rotation” May develope when doing continuous rolls with more than 90 degrees per second (that is quite a low value). I have never seen or had such an effect whatever extreme rolls I have performed in DCS. (symptoms: intensive growths in slide slip and lateral G, intensive +or- or alternating G without stab input, increasing roll rate.) This a dangerous departure that actually killed pilots. 9. This is subjective: the plane is totally stable with AP stabilization OFF. Never ever used that system other than just for testing it. Did they implement it in the real plane for fun? IRL MiG-21 drivers told me that without the system the plane needed constant corrections. Performance in the normal flight envelope is NOT the problem, it performs as expected or better... Sluggish? Really? Don’t get slow with those tiny delta wings and it will not be “sluggish” lol.

Here are the other relevant parts of the NATOPS: 11.3.1 Critical Mach The free--stream Mach number at which there are first signs of local sonic airflow on the wing and hence shockwaveformation.Critical Mach (Mcrit) is measured in 1g flight. This occurs on the AV--8B at 0.82 to 0.85 IMN (indicated mach number). 11.3.1.1 Shock--induced Flow Separation Loss of smooth (laminar) airflow over the wing can occur due to shock wave formation if the airflow over the wing is allowed to become supersonic. A1-AV8BB--NFM--000ORIGINAL 11-311.3.1.2 Maneuvering Mcrit Although Mcrit is measured in 1g flight, the effect of shockwave formation can occur at Mach numbers below Mcrit due to AOA on the wing. The increasing AOA accelerates the airflow across the top of the wing so that it becomes supersonic at an IMN less than the 1 g critical Mach. In the AV--8B this effect becomes apparent when maneuvering above 0.78 IMN 11.3.1.4 Force Divergence Mach Number/Drag Rise The indicated Mach number above critical Mach, which produces a sharp change in the drag coefficient (boundarylayer separation due to shock wave formation ) is termed the “force divergence” Mach number. It is also referred toas “drag divergence” and occurs on the Harrier at approximately 0.87 IMN and results in buffet, trim and stability changes, and a decrease in control surface effectiveness If the buffet is quite severe or prolonged, structural damageor failure may occur when this boundary layer separation is experienced on the wing due to shock wave formation.There will be a loss of lift and a subsequent loss of downwash aft of the affected area. When shock induced separationoccurs symmetrically at the wing root the decrease of downwash aft of this area results in a decrease in downwashon the horizontal stabilator and thus we notice the aircraft’s tendency to “tuck”. If the wings shock unevenly due tophysical shape differences or sideslip, a rolling moment will be created in the direction of the initial loss of lift andwill contribute to “wing drop” and control difficulty. If either of these conditions occurs reduce the throttle anddecelerate the aircraft below 0.78 IMNwhile avoiding any large control inputs

That is quite violent! It seems to be by the book. :thumbup: BUT, that is not the same subject we were talking about. " Originally Posted by mvsgas ---------------------- 11.3.1.3 Transonic Wing Drop All variants of the AV−8B can experience a sudden uncommanded roll−off, also called wing drop, caused by the abrupt asymmetric stall of the wings. Wing drop occurs suddenly, with little or no warning to the pilot, and may occur at AOAs below the maneuvering tone. The severity of wing drop increases as Mach number increases and as altitude decreases. At Mach numbers greater than 0.8 IMN, wing drop may occur 3° AOA below the maneuvering tone. At greater than 0.8 IMN wing drop may occur 3° AOA below maneuvering tone. The severity of wing drop increases as Mach number increases and as altitude decreases. If wing drop occurs, flying qualities can be improved by reducing AOA. WARNING Transonic wing drop may occur at angles of attack below the maneuvering tone. Extreme care should be exercised at elevated AOA when maneuvering near ground level above Mach 0.8. . -------------------------------------" Here there is no mention of aileron input, neither is it a comlete departure from controlled flight. As I understand the text there should be a tendecy for a simple uncommanded roll to one direction, when pulling back the stick hard enough (no aileron input) while flying at high mach numbers. In the following track I actually go over Mach 1, then pull full aft stick (clean aircraft diving from 10000 m ) and there is no tendency of uncommanded roll or any other adverse effects. Again I am simply relying on your text from the NATOPS, nothing more. AV8_supersonic.trk

According to the NATOPS paragraph that you have copied here in your previous posts, yes it seems to miss things: " Originally Posted by mvsgas 11.3.1.3 Transonic Wing Drop All variants of the AV−8B can experience a sudden uncommanded roll−off, also called wing drop, caused by the abrupt asymmetric stall of the wings. Wing drop occurs suddenly, with little or no warning to the pilot, and may occur at AOAs below the maneuvering tone. The severity of wing drop increases as Mach number increases and as altitude decreases. At Mach numbers greater than 0.8 IMN, wing drop may occur 3° AOA below the maneuvering tone. At greater than 0.8 IMN wing drop may occur 3° AOA below maneuvering tone. The severity of wing drop increases as Mach number increases and as altitude decreases. If wing drop occurs, flying qualities can be improved by reducing AOA. WARNING Transonic wing drop may occur at angles of attack below the maneuvering tone. Extreme care should be exercised at elevated AOA when maneuvering near ground level above Mach 0.8. . " I have never experienced this behaviour with the harrier. Even at Mach 0.95 you can pull beyond the tone, there will be no wing drop, nothing. There is no change in behaviour due to the high Mach number. I could make a track, but why don't you all just test it? It's perfectly stable, no adverse effects. I'm not a harrier expert, just relying on your source...

The pics are related to asymmetric loadouts. NOT to the transsonic phenomena. 2nd and different subject (related to your post): Lack of the transsonic behaviour described in your post: I can accelerate to M 0.9 and pull the stick beyond the maneuvering tone and it still flies stable, no wing drop, nothing in particular. (that is with symmetric loadout)

This! You can pull over the tone while at M0.9 easily, no ill effects, nothing Why is this not simulated here? We have sort of similiar effects with the Mig-15 and F-86. Thats the problem not the asymmetric loads in my opinion.

Here are two pics with the control indicator, while having 1 single Mk-83 on the outer wing pylon. Straight and level. This does not seem excessive to me. If I had a real harrier stick with real forces and curves set to zero it would be even less of a problem. Other than this, according to the NATOPS parts in a previous post, there should be a wing drop tendency at more than M 0.8 (something like Mig-15 simulates well, if you have that module. Also the F-86). I've never experienced it with the AV-8. I can pull 12 degrees AoA at Mach 0.85, no control problems, none of the effects described there. Now that is a missing FM feature.

Good idea, but there should be a DCS wide AWACS/GCI developement, as the current system is simply horrible. I have already started a thread on 2.5 whishlist, not much success there. Seems like people dont care too much a about it. Maybe if RAZBAM would ask for it, that would have a bit more weight to it. Really that old Lock On style AWACS cr.p is holding all cold war fighters back.

http://https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3772536&postcount=25 Here is a great post showing how it should look like approximately. Now targets look like something from a digital radar display while the radar is doing a 4 bar scan (according to the refresh rate) Other issue seems to be that the radar targets act as if the radar was stabilized. I don't really see a shift in the picture as ownship bank angle changes. (Ground returns look fine, it is only about target returns!)

Well, realistically, in DCS MP it is 90% lone wolf action. That is a problem, but that is the ugly truth. Honestly, I don’t have many hours on this server, but when I was there, SRS was usually silent and no human GCI. Next week I’ll make sure to be on comms, when I get home. (Hopefully in a nice new and shiny MiG-19):thumbup:

You are totally right, but this would take a bit of teamwork, because being the only MiG up high coupled with this horrible AI AWACS can be dangerous in itself... Happens all the time: talking about pop up bandits 100kms away, no mention of the F-5 closing in on my six for minutes, even though we are both over 5000 m. BTW I have started a thread more than once on the 2.5 whish list about AWACS improvements, thinking that there will be an angry mob coming, hating this current system, asking for improvements, but it didn’t really happen...

Just because it happed in a certain way in Vietnam, (which was rather F-4 vs Migs) doesn’t mean that it is the only “realistic” scenario... If I was flying the F-4 with sparrows, sure I wouldn’t try to fight grass level. The F-5 has an advantage down there, because radar is not a factor and it’s really hard to spot. And I do hate it as a Mig driver, but that is their best option. Also considering the concentration of radar SAMs in a real Cold War scenario I don’t see it unrealistic to fly treetop level all the time, especially for NATO. There was a whole generation of strike aircraft developed in the 70s and 80s specifically for low level strikes as trying to break through the air defenses anywhere else would be simply suicide... The weapons restrictions are both more realistic and more fun now. Win win. Btw. one scenario I could imagine, that would make ppl fight up high would be a bomber escort (AI B-52/Tu-95 ) mission, where protecting the bombers would be really mission critical. That could be really fun. :joystick: About players throwing away their planes instead of RTB: The only way to prevent this would be to limit the number of lives like in BF...

I did not buy the L-39 or the Yak-52, because of their “use”, but because I was interested in those planes. Wanted to get to know them, learn to operate them. This is not just a game, this is a simulator, where you can learn things like that if you want. I don’t fly them a often, but still I consider them a very good purchase. I think that there is a campaign called Kursant for the L-39 that brings you through flight training. Things like that could be interesting to newcomers I think, if they whish to learn to operate in a more realistic way.

If you don't actually need that money to buy food with it, I don't think you should refund... :) Don't let some steam gauges scare you away!

Previously I was under the impression, that the forum is there to discuss subjects related, ask questions and provide feedback... :doh:

Wow, that looks so much better! :thumbup:

For some reason, in the videos released so far, they never drop the drop tanks when trying to go fast... That is certainly holding it back.

Dear ED! Please consider some possible adjustments to current AI AWACS/GCI -1. Basic threat priority - set a filter or something based on range and aspect, when bandits are close! I don't want to hear about what is there 250 miles away, when about to merge. -2. Set focus on highest threat (range/aspect) and keep the player updated on that. This is an important feature, since there are a lot of cold war birds already here and the Mig-19/Mig-23 are also coming. This 2003 LOMAC remnant AI GCI is really frustrating!