Lace

That's great, thanks.

Any plans for a 1950s/60s version of the map? All these new maps are great but I feel the older post-WWII modules are being left out in the cold.

So interpolate between... MIL Power ------------ Drag Index (DI) = 0: 450 KIAS until Mach 0.88 DI = 300: 300 KIAS until Mach 0.72 It would be nice if the loadout section in preflight/mission planner gave the DI.

Yeah, QFE not really that relevant when you have a RAD Alt. QNH more important for performance figures, deconfliction, etc.

I remember seeing somewhere that an 'ideal' climb profile in the Viper is 350kts until M0.8, then hold the mach number until TOC. My question is - is this correct, and what is the power setting (assume MIL, but haven't seen it stated)?

IIRC the Mossie and Apache were released pretty close to each other. Not much commonality so unlikely to steal sales from each other, and the hardcore DCS'ers like myself will just buy them both anyway. Likewise for simultaneous map/module releases I'd imagine, but I'm sure ED do their homework regarding release timings.

Kiowa has been very quite lately though. It might just be a 'hey, we haven't forgotten!'.

I hope one of the four is the Kiowa. Would love to see an F-111 or Tornado, but doubt I will this time. Afghanistan was teased in the '2022 and beyond' video, so given we are now in September, it would be nice to have that formally announced. We already know about the F-4 (both of them). Maybe Su-17/22?

Time to dust off the CH yoke and quadrant!

I would speculate that some of the more highly anticipated theatres have already been earmarked by ED (or other more established partners) and are perhaps currently in development. We already know about Afghanistan. Vietnam has been often hinted at. It wouldn't surprise me if there are others.

Would I buy it? Yes, if only for the experience of sitting in it in VR and practicing QRA scrambles. Would I fly it many combat missions? probably not. It would require multi crew and long endurance flights. The actual 'combat' element would be a very small % of that. As a pure bomber I'd much rather a Tornado GR1, F-111 or F-117, as I think the strategic element is absent from DCS and a tactical asset makes more sense.

I voted British FGR for a number of reasons. Firstly, I am British. Secondly, the UK is hugely underrepresented in terms of 'modern' aircraft. Hawk - dead, Eurofighter - German version, Harrier - American version, Gazelle - French version. Spitfire & Mossie - WWII. I would love to see an accurate UK version of any aircraft depicted in DCS, so until the Tornado GR1 is announced, I'm pinning my hopes on this. Complete with standard issue RAFG overcast and drizzle please.

Show the Apache drivers how it's done.

I'll buy two.

It's not about one-upping anyone, it's correcting simple misunderstandings - your OP (which you have since edited) claimed adverse yaw was a result of p-factor, made no mention of parasitic or induced drag. You called spoilers slats. There are a lot of pilots who also play DCS, and having a basic understanding of aerodynamic principles will help you and improve your flying. I've read some gross errors of thinking by non-pilot gamers on this forums (one even claimed that the rudder was to correct the difference between course and heading in crosswind conditions!! - imagine a real pilot flying a whole leg with the aircraft uncoordinated, just so the nose was pointed in the 'right' direction!). It is easy for novices to pick up this stuff and assume it is lore because the post count of the poster implies some level of knowledge or experience (often incorrectly). Anyone reporting a technical or handling issue should at least have an understanding of that issue in reality. I learn things on this forum all the time, and am happy to do so, but I am also happy to explain and point out errors of understanding if I see them. It is not meant to shame anyone, so apologies if you took it that way, but we should all be striving to improve our understanding. Aerodynamics and aircraft design is a complicated field, and as with many complicated fields, there is often more than one way of achieving the same result.

Flaps increase lift by increasing the angle of incidence of the wing. It is essentially rotating the wing backwards about the main spar in the lateral plane.

Spoilers are designed primarily to reduce lift, not increase drag. That is what air brakes do. Granted there is some crossover and some applications have a combined function, but as I stated earlier, the majority of your drag is induced as a function of lift. Less lift=less drag. I'm not an F14 expert by any means but I believe their spoilers can work as vertical speed adjusters by function of the DLC to allow for correction on landing by directly dumping lift, without reducing aircraft airspeed - they are not adding drag.

Another point of order here - spoilers do not necessarily increase total drag, they increase parasitic drag, but by virtue of the reduced lift they 'spoil', they reduce induced drag. generally less lift=less drag. Spoilers are used to reduce lift without affecting the aircraft speed, otherwise frequent roll inputs would necessitate power changes to correct.

Agreed, but that is a completely different question. That is down to EDs flight models, and not real world physics.

Just thought I'd pull this point. Adverse yaw is not a result of the propulsion method and is not necessarily more prevalent in props than jets. It is caused by the downgoing aileron causing more drag as a result of the increased lift, and the upgoing aileron reducing drag and lift. This is why you will yaw outside the turn, rather than into it, and it is not a product of P-factor. It can be eliminated or reduced by various methods, such as differential ailerons (i.e. the downgoing moves less than the upgoing), spoiler deployment, or as I suspect is the cause of your confusion - a flight control (FBW, pilot gets a vote type) system as fitted to modern jets, which will automatically counter any adverse yaw and is why the effect is not generally witnessed in those aircraft. Apologies if you are already aware of this and I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but the wording of that sentence grabbed my attention.

Like you say, different times. I sometimes fly with an ex-Aéronavale Super Étendard pilot. I'll have to ask him next time - he's still a big smoker.

Well, that was a surprise... South Atlantic who?

I use a lot of nose down trim, pretty much through the full flight regime. Helps with over rotating too.

Below your left elbow, waay at the back. How French. Seriously, what is it?

Planning. One pass, haul ass. No need to loiter - this isn't an A-10.