HWasp

You'll need to upload tracks of those quick tests, especially the viper one with 50% fuel doing 23 dps at 450. I've seen some really bad stuff posted here before, so I'd like to see, how those turns actually looked like.

This PM, if coming from a valid source clearly indicates that we have a problem. In DCS clean vs clean the F-18 has a very substantial STR advantage, not even close. If they'd be close as the PM suggests, I think, most would be happy.

I'm also suspecting, that the F-18 overperforms in some areas, but we'll need much more details on how that chart by GVad was created (data sources) to get something going here. Previous threads on this topic were all dead ends simply because no real data was available.

Of course you can fight at low speeds, just the DCS 21bis can do it better, so you'll be at a disadvantage. I think, it's better to actually test in DCS, what really works, instead of going after history. Results won't be the same for multiple reasons... So, to back this up, I've just quickly made 2 tracks, with a simple maneuvre sequence: Start at 400 kts, cash in energy with a 360 deg horizontal turn to enter that low speed regime we are discussing. Do a full loop starting from low speed, then transition into another 360 on the deck. Based on the stories, you'll probably think, that the MiG-21 will be at a disadvantage and maybe even fall out of the sky going vertical at that low speed, but in DCS, it completes this sequence almost 10 seconds quicker, than the F-4 will (F-4 60%fuel 2 heaters, MiG-21 80% fuel + 2 R3S), flown at red line AoA all the time. That is a big difference, and I didn't even use the flaps on the 21... So it doesn't matter, how well you can control the F-4, you just don't want to go there in general. Against the Mirage F-1 it's quite even, so it might be worth a try sometimes because the F-1 accelerates much worse. F-4_seq.trk MiG21_seq.trk

You are right about the 21AI, people just really, really like to argue here, even if it makes no sense. I'd suggest trying the MiG-23 AI instead, that is not doing extreme things, maybe a bit too easy, but certainly good for gunnery practice. ........................................ For me the main and only rule for the F-4 is to never get below 400 kts. I think the bleed rate below 400 is the big trap in the F-4, even pulling through vertical on the way down in a loop, it's easy to turn all the energy into vortices instead of turn rate.

Launching without radar lock is the only way to engage targets effectively at low alt and even below you. You need to select BST mode and set the Speedgate in the WSO pit with the Aspect knob for appropriate closure speed. (Jester won't be able to help with this, so either get a human WSO or just "jump" back there and set it yourself) For me Aspect knob to FWD works best (target hot), then visually track the target with the gun piper until impact. Crank is the most basic BVR thing, the purpose is to decrease your closure to the bandit, while still guiding your own missile. The "advantage" is the decreased closure speed itself, maybe coupled with a dive (still within radar gimbal limits) to either decrease the effective range of the enemy's missile launched at you, or just to simply buy more time before a potential merge with non-bvr capable targets.

The MiG-21 charts seems to be without the ChR (emergency afterburner). I can sustain 13 - 13,5 degrees / sec around 220 kts with it engaged, so be careful, there is no STR advantage for the Phantom there. Also, the MiG-21 can easily go vertical even from there (220 kts) and complete a full loop easily any quickly. With that in mind, I'd say always keep the Phantom between 400 and 520 kts and never let go of that speed unless pulling in for a real good shot. MiG-21_450-420.trk

Yes, it would be very important to understand, that in DCS, F-4s are not fighting 21F13s or PFs or MFs, but the bis, with the ChR, and it's always on for everybody in DCS. Once below 4000m, don't count on having better T/W than the 21bis, and avoid getting slow fighting it, unless you can see the "21 dance", which might be sign of weakness... (I'm talking about human opponents only, the 21 AI is just sh.t.)

Ok, so without any profile, I just hit M1.0 at 36000 ft in 02:50 after brake release (clean, full, 20C), hit Mach 2+ at around 06:30 with a DUCT TEMP HIGH warning, pulled up to 30 degrees and, climbed over 76k ft, then back to below 40k with a 180 deg turn, hit M 1.8. At that point Jester reminded me to check the fuel state, so I came out of burner and ended up subsonic over 30k with 2300 lbs remaining and 50nm to go for the runway. By DCS safety standards, thats comfortable. So, yeah, it is slow... compared to the MiG-29

Didn't have the chance to fly the F-4 yet, but in general for the era, it's best to start a shallow descent for the initial acceleration starting from the high 30-ies to reach Mach 1.4 in the low 30-ies or latest around 28k. Then a level segment to reach an optimum indicated speed for the type (if not already there), followed by a shallow climb, keeping the same indicated speed, until maximum Mach number is reached.

I remember Strike Fighters being a cold war themed game, I have no problems being stuck together with the current cold war FC3 stuff, on the contrary, I fly them regularly. My point was avoiding "sci-fi" things like the F-22, F-35 etc. and I'd prefer to stay away from post cold war 4th gens, except for a Flanker, the only reason being that the red side post cold war scene is really sparse. Simplified planes can still have reasonably realistic capabilities, given there are proper sources available.

It's not really possible to build good scenarios without such compromises in DCS... For me, any 9.12 is perfect for the 80ies.

I think, you could go through some videos like this to understand the principles a bit, then it will get easier to learn things on your own.

I'd really like to see a modern FC Flanker version, because I think that due to ED's background with the type, they could build a really decent product. Otherwise, doing new modern, classified planes could be slippery slope and turn into science fiction quickly. It still needs to remain a simulator, and for that proper data is needed, even if the product is simplified imo. I'd prefer the cold war era for new planes.

Most popular choice is: "I like the specific aircraft that is simulated, not available otherwise." Interpreting that survey like that is incorrect, if we want to know, whether people want new FC4 types, that are not available as FF, then the question should be that, not something different. I also fly the FC3 MiG-29 or Su-27 because no FF version is available, but that does NOT mean that I don't want a FC4 MiG-27 or Mirage 3 etc. that is not even on the roadmap as FF yet. For me the flight model is the "essence" of DCS, and FC3 had good standards in that regard.

Why? We could have FC4 versions first, then in some cases FF version could follow, like in the case of the MiG-29. There would be multiple new FC4 planes, the whole DCS scene could benefit from: A simplified modern Flanker A fast red cold war striker (Su-17/MiG-27) More Korean War era planes. WW2 gapfillers like an earlier BF-109G Some of them could be turned into FF later, no rules against that.

Just to make it clear for those people, who are not familiar with this: Outside air temperature has a very large effect on jet performance. Usually a standard temperature of 15 degrees Celsius is used for tests and diagrams. DCS default is 20 C. Higher temperature leads to decreased performance.

I've finally got to replay the track in DCS, and this is much worse, than I thought. OP has set the temperature to 41 degrees Celsius in the "test" to get the wanted results.... So it turns out this is not a case of simple incompetence and lack of knowledge, but an actual attempt at disinformation (a really bad one though ) Not sure if this should be just laughed at or reported to the mods. I would think, spreading misinformation on purpose here just to bait people is a bit too much.

That's unlikely due to the radar of the F-4. It will be difficult to avoid merges. Once there F-4s will need to be very careful not to get sucked into a low speed fight, because as mentioned above, the DCS 21 does overperform there quite a bit. It will be interesting, can't wait...

Well, both are at the G limit in this case. Corner speed is the minimum speed, at which the aircraft can pull the maximum G available (regardless of speed loss). In this case, the lowest speed, where 7.5G is available. This will also produce the max ITR. Max STR will come at a higher speed, where the Ps0 line meets the 7.5G limit. OP flew much faster than either of these speeds for the given weight, so it's all invalid.

Just to keep it short and simple: Maximum sustained rate occurs in this case, where the 7.5G limit (in this config) can be first maintained without losing speed at constant max.AB. That speed will be around 400 or less for the given weight. OP is flying much faster than that, resulting in lower rates than the maximum available (even 490 in the second turn). OP is also obviously not keeping constant max AB, as that would result in acceleration at those speeds and Gs. What you see on the tacview are 2 random turns at different speeds (not even held constant..,), neither of which are anywhere close to the actual maximum performance of the aircraft.

It is obvious, that you lack basic understanding of the subject you are trying to post about. Please, at least try to educate yourself about basic concepts, like what maximum sustained rate is, before trying to correct others...

There are 3 modern fighters in DCS World (that I know of), where no public EM diagram or similiar solid performance data is available. I didn't want to start a discussion about them, since this is the F-16 thread, but it's easy to find out which ones I'm talking about.

I think the F-16 is correct as is, it matches public data, it's been reviewed multiple times. IF relative performance of the modules is not accurate, I would be more suspicious about some of the other modules, where there is no public data available...

Yes, I've seen many. That's one of the reasons I never liked the old FM.