HWasp

I suspect, you don't have too much experience fighting human opponents in fox1 scenarios in DCS, because, then you'd know how important speed and altitude advantage is, given the radars and missiles are roughly in the same league. Maybe during the Vietnam war, MiGs had to intercept US aircraft, that were not flying low? Come on, seriously... You must be joking at this point. That soviet assumption chart has the F-15A on top, far far ahead of the MiG-23. Also the F-16A is shown to be better. I guess that clearly demontrates soviet superiority. lol I'm always eager to learn, so if you have some good data on APQ-120 being used at low alt against aircraft in the ground clutter, just post it, I have no problem with being proven wrong, but at this point you are the one throwing around extremely generalized statements.

First you come up with the MiG-23, that I didn't even mention in my post, you originally replied to, then this, as if I was some kind of 23 fanatic... strange way to discuss things that is for sure. Look, I don't really care that much. I'll fly both modules for sure, and then I'll see, which one is better. If you don't have a Doppler radar or some kind of MTI for look down capability, then surprise, surprise, flying low does neutralize the radar in most cases and therefore the Aim-7. You know, that the F-4E does not have a Doppler radar right? Have you seen this chart before?

I didn't even mention the 23, but ok... My point was, the lack of look down capability of the radar can and will be used against it by non BVR planes like the 21, so that might make it difficult to avoid WVR, where the chances get even at best. Regarding the 23, the main advantage I expect to see is it's speed and acceleration. The MiG-23 has insane acceleration going through the Mach (there is an interview with an American pilot who flew the 23UB and F-22 as well, and he said, it beats even the F-22 in transsonic acceleration. And that is just a UB...) My money will be on our 23MLA in a head on Fox-1 joust that usually happens in DCS, when some sort of GCI is present, because speed and altitude advantage are key there. I think they are actually even more important than in a Fox3 scenario. The 23 can always be a lot faster unless the F-4 comes prepared, already high and supersonic. Afaik radar ranges are pretty close except look down and low altitude, where the 23 has the advantage clearly. The 23 will also be able disengage from the fox1 fight with better chances if needed, while the F-4 can't do that unless the 23 runs out fuel. I don't know, who treats the 23 as flawless perfection, I always only see the opposite, everyone thinks it's complete trash based mainly on the MS version. We'll see how it will turn out...

Here, you can bank the plane without any yaw oscillations up until 40 degrees AoA... Just use the rudder, thats it. The compressor stall got me though F-1roll.trk

For me yaw oscillations happen only if I do large uncoordinated inputs at high AoA. Basic rule: As AoA increases, more and more rudder is needed for roll and at max AoA it is rudder only. Throwing the stick around at high AoA leads to oscillations... so don't do that maybe?

1. Don't ever compare FMs to the AI, because they are not accurate at all, that MiG-19AI might outrate an F-16. They are UFOs as you said. 2. If you can't control your speed and you just get a "wet fart" out of it, maybe learn to fly it, and try again? (btw the MiG-19 is a very good rate fighter, it might outrate the F-1 for real, this does not depend on age, the MiG-17 and 15 will also outrate it for sure)

I think, against human opponents, the F-4 won't have too much success in BVR, even against 21s because of the radar. People will either stay low or dive once engaged and loose the lock. After that, in WVR, it's a huge beast with smoking engines, and that will be more important than exact turn rates imo. Usually, the one who spots the enemy first, wins. Wouldn't be surprised if the F-5 would be more successful in air to air in practice. At least in DCS.

Unfortunately the endless debate will remain, no way around that. Best of luck! Thank you very much as well !

I think you are mistaken here a little bit, because I don't give a sh.t about the F-16 or any specific module, don't care about balance, because I don't do guns only frequently (really only just sometimes) I fly early cold war jets, that's where the fun is for me. The reason I started posting here was, that I thought something might be slightly off with the module, that is all. Thank you very much for your hard work, overall I think it is quite excellent. The STR issue remains an open question for me, you did not produce data, that would convince me, but of course that doesn't matter. There is an unfortunate trend here in DCS, that modules with very scarce documentation, like the Hornet, perform in surprising ways compared to modules that have much more detailed documentation available, that makes me question their accuracy sometimes. Hearsay is hearsay of course, but if the module's performance does contradict it directly, it is natural, that it raises questions. I personally find it very strange, that this great possible feature of the aircraft is such a guarded secret, and they avoid sustained turns at airshows, like a plague... (hud video is prime example, had to look at it 5 times to notice that 2 seconds of actual sustained horizontal turn) I really hope, that at some point some better evidence shows up, so this question gets settled. Did not mean to be offensive in any way, again I do appriciate your hard work, even if I happen to question it like this. Thanks!

I don't see how can you establish useful data from this if half the equation is gear drag , which is also just a big unkown. How can you establish from this, which part of the equation is wrong? If clean config glide is the question for the L/D, there needs to be a gate, an exact altitude and distance to pass with the clean aircraft. Now the result is: A- gear drag is too high B - L/D is too low C - both gear drag and L/D are wrong D- ? So basically the whole thing doesn't make sense.

I'll have to amend that, it is not working from 30k 40nm with 280 as well.

Ok, now it is your turn to demonstrate this with a track, because with the gear extended at 5000, you cannot reach the field from 10k test and is only barely survivable from 30k. You are basically killing yourself with that 5000 feet gear down, I hope there is a strong technical case for that otherwise it is pretty strange.

Dropping the gear at 5000 is a pretty damn big difference! That should have been important to note really What is the reason for that? If I'm flying to survive an engine out like that, I will drop the gear only when landing is assured, otherwise it will just ruin my glide. I would never drop the gear unless a technical reason makes it necessary. btw if that is the case, why was it so important to fly from 40nm at 260 if you can just start the scenario at 10k 260 14nm? It's the gear, what will ultimately decide the difference...

Here is a 40nm one with a center droptank full + 100% fuel had to do S-turns on short final, because ended up high M2000_engine_out_proc_40nm__full_1droptank_1122.trk

"So the procedure goes as follows: 280 kt indicated should give you 14 nm for 10 000 ft. 280 is chosen because it's close to the best glide speed (~260 kt) and inside the engine relight domain. The slats should be forced in. Stabilize at 5000 ft to slow down to 230 kt minimum. Maintain 230 kt in final. This procedure does not give fuel or configuration information but we can guess that in such emergency external stores would be jettisoned so the procedure must be possible with basically full fuel and no stores. I'll record a track later." This was the procedure given to me. I was testing this one.

For this I have also disabled the slats, and made an S turn to simulate a 30 degree offset, so worst case scenario. I would consider this reasonably safe in this config

Yes I did, but I have found something more interesting: I just stumbled upon this combination : with 1 full center tank and 100% fuel, sustained rate at 340 kts is almost exactly 4,8G as per the video (that may or may not be relevant) Also with the same configuration engine out procedure is fully safe (the previous loadout was really on the limit) M2000_engine_out_proc_1droptank_1122.trk

Thanks! I checked that, really is on the limit as you say. I would not have thought, that the aircraft is capable of this (I don't think I ever flew that high with less than Mach 1,5 ) On the other hand, regarding the possible effects of a 10% L/D reduction, I did fly the engine out profile now with full A/A loadout + a droptank at full fuel, and still made it. I have even made a small S turn around 5000 feet to simulate the effect of a 30 degrees offset. I'm not sure, what the combined drag penalty of the 2x Magic2 + 2x 530D + droptank is, but I would guess it is a lot. Please see the track attached. I understand, that emergency procedures have tolerances built in, but this seems too much for me. Speed can be completely off of the optimum speed (demonstrated earlier), stores, droptanks can still be on, even with a turn. M2000_engine_out_proc_err_FullAAload_droptank_1122.trk

Could you please tell me a possible FL500 loadout? Thanks! Regarding the chevrons: I think they don't follow the changes perfectly intantenously in the HUD footage. There seems to be a maximum speed, at which they move, so during a high G-onset rate they are a bit late. Looking carefully at the video you can see at high G-onset turns, that the speed is already decreasing while the chevrons still indicate an increase. That was my main point, why the initially claimed G at Ps0 is not valid, because the chevrons are late and plane is already beyond Ps0 when they arrive at the FPM.

I'm not ingoring anything, I brought up points that might prove otherwise.

I understand, it is complicated. Are you sure, a Cd increase causing a 0,5-0,7 G sustained G drop at around 12 AoA would distort that much? Again I'm thinking about relatively minor differences.

No, I gave you some numbers, that seem to line up. Is Jx value showing acceleration? Is the -5 engine is weaker, by 10%? How does a weaker engine affect acceleration? Does temperature affect thrust? If -5 has 10% less thrust than P2, at 15C, Jx will be noticably lower. You said 15C difference causes around 5% thrust difference for the engine--->> need a LOT of temperature correction to make up for the 10%, (-15C just going by your numbers ) I simply just used the information You have given me, and they seem plausible to me.

M53-5 has 8-10% less thrust than P2, right? This means acceleration will be less if T=15C, so Jx< 0.68 Previously you have mentioned, for this engine 15C temp increase is roughly -5% thrust That means, that if you want to make up for the difference with temperature, then this should be a winter video, with temps around 0 Celsius at least. So actually with that in mind, since foliage is visible in the vid, and it does not look like winter to me, this could still be a C model with non-standard B/W camera... This would be best case scenario for everyone, since even though it means the necessity of another round of tuning, but finally there would be some really solid evidence for STR, and also probably this heavily debated subject about STR could be put to rest, and you guys could focus on my new MiG-23

That is certainly wrong, as this type of airbrake does disturb the airflow and may be even altering vortex forms and generation, so the whole system might act differently compared to clean. Also, this is not even a precision manuever, it's just an overhead break. All kinds of variables there, great for testing against gross errors, but otherwise...

Also, even though I understand now, what Kercheiz said about the signs, that show, it is a B, and while I trust his knowledge of course, that is not 100% evidence, although it could be very likely. if Jx=0,68, what are the chances, that temperature there is just right for the B to match the C's acceleration exactly. Of course it can happen, but still...