Tiger-II

That's insane! Re-framing the question: why do people doubt the veracity of the claim? 50 years ago makes it the 1970s, and by then they understood lifting bodies, so I would doubt it is ignorance of the physics? Is it a East vs. West thing, or were people within Russia also debating it? I think we were experimenting with wings on helicopters, but AFAIK in the 1970s we weren't flying anything with "wings". Pylons, yes. I'm also thinking about helicopters such as the Sikorskis that have the protruding landing gear wells, and others such as the SH-3 and derivatives that had long, shaped nacelles either side of the fuselage, such as the CH-3 and later MH-53.

You were clear! I wondered if the wings offset the right rolling force, but as you point out, with the tail rotor being above the CoG it could be enough to do this on its own (and an effect I hadn't actually considered). I don't understand why people would think it is over-modelled? If you're flying with virtually flat pitch on the main rotor in high speed flight, sure, but I don't see that in any of the videos I've seen. The collective is far from "at the bottom".

Are the left and right wings symmetrical? Is the rolling tendency offset by the right wing producing slightly more lift than the left? i.e. not symmetrical? The thrust due to the tail rotor is diminished at high forward speed, so seems a reasonable assumption that it would help cancel out the rolling force. Why would this be in doubt? The wing area is not insignificant, and clearly forms an aerodynamic surface.

It ca't be that dubious - I've recently seen Western military helicopters sporting something similar.

My other post was just talking about informational sources and how there are reports of JF-17 making a couple of kills. I have previously linked articles in older threads from a year or two ago when this was discussed. Sky Dragon SD-10A SAM: http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/chinese-sd-10a-sky-dragon-medium-range.html

So the soothing "Missile! Missile! Missile!" is actually the dev's wife and not the real voice? She could make nuclear armageddon sound a fun day out. Lucky dev! (and hello 'wife' if you're reading! ). As for the JF-17 being rubbish - I recall some time ago citing sources that JF-17 fired several AA missiles in combat and scored a couple of kills??? I also showed that the missiles carried by the JF-17 are so good they're used as SAMs. They're reported to have over a 90% PK.

From what I understand, the Phoenix has different flight profiles based upon range, relative altitude, and guidance mode. As simulated, it only flies one profile, and tends to fly too low rather than lofting up.

From what I understand of the systems and their heritage, they're very accurate. What do you think isn't accurate?

What? The flight profile isn't as it should be.

I'm talking overall. I know it had its aerodynamics updated. It doesn't mean much though when the guidance is still wrong (especially for such a long-range missile).

Sounds to me like you didn't balance the fuel tanks as described further up this thread. The fuel tanks are two cells in the fuselage; forward and aft tanks. One is smaller than the other, but each engine draws fuel from each tank separately. As a result, you need to balance the tanks, but this must only be performed in flight.

I agree, but the fact we're back on that topic says a lot about the Jeff already. We can "nit-pick" details like this seeing as the rest of the aircraft is pretty much done.

Ahh... I remember reading that. Is this true for the SD-10 yet? From what I recall the -120 flight model discussed is only for the -120 and not all missiles. Which model is being used by ED since they took over the SD-10 after the first round of ... "controversy"? Note that I'm not defending the SD-10 here - I want to see ALL missiles accurately modelled, including their guidance. I'm critical of all missiles, including the Phoenix (it's still wrong). SAMs drive me crazy.

Do you have TacView? If you watch the AI they dump all their speed when beaming, and as soon as their speed drops below Mach 0.50 the missile can no longer track. Unbelievably, this is not a "bug" but a design decision to prevent you firing missiles at helicopters! Yes, it sucks massively, and can be exploited by humans, too.

Aircraft flight models are, but AFAIK that is not true for the missiles. The missiles are modelled by ED and 3rd parties don't have access. All they can do is use an existing asset and tune it, but otherwise they don't write the flight model for the missile. They can't even create guidance routines. RADAR missiles are by far the weakest part of DCS.

US vs. Chinese missiles. You know the dev team are Chinese and have special access that they can't make public?

What do you mean "maintains its energy better"? Pulling +13 g or +1 g? Looking at those graphs, the missile is still short of range when it runs out of energy. You realize without a proper flight model (we don't exactly know how the missiles are modelled and appear to be some form of SFM-level simplicity) all this talk is nonsense? Until each missile gets full AFM-level flight modelling specific to the missile with realistic guidance, anything we do in DCS is going to be wrong at some level. The original reason the SD-10 was modelled the way it was, was because it wouldn't reach the range and terminal velocity required. Unfortunately it meant an OP missile at shorter ranges, but it was a sad reflection of what is otherwise possible within the confines of DCS at the present time. You realize the AIM-120 is also wrong?

I want to see proper flight models and guidance for all missiles in DCS (yes yes.... I know about the "it's classified" arguments) but we can surely do better than we already have. I'd also like to see the removal of the totally unrealistic behavior of missiles losing lock on slow targets and inability to track helicopters at all.

+1 for that analysis. However... weaknesses as they may be, if you exploit them when flying the Jeff, you can turn them into benefits if used sparingly. Dissimilar combat requires that you use the entire flight envelope, and not a small sub-set because "that's what you're supposed to do". It's idealistic (and IMHO straight-up deception) to suggest that you should always maintain max corner airspeed in a fight. You think the other guy is going to do that? That's how you end up dead (the naturally superior aircraft in such a situation will eventually win assuming fuel doesn't become an issue first). You must therefore break the deadlock. If it's a fair fight, you already lost. The AoA Limiter at higher speed is annoying but something that can be worked with. At some point the other guy is going to want to try and get behind you, and so will need to slow down to do that. You need to keep dragging them to the deck. Vertical fight works for defense if you're in the more powerful aircraft, but there are ways to defeat even this tactic in a lesser aircraft. "Don't fly to them; let them fly to you". I'm quite happy to bump the stall warning cue. There is a perfect example of flying at min flying speed in the Rafale vs. F-22 video. He's down at 85 kts at one point.

It can happen if the scale is off. AFAIK the world is 1:1, but it doesn't mean that it translates in the way the world is drawn. How to explain this... Starting with the aircraft, assuming it is scaled correctly and built correctly (3D model) then if the pitch ladder displays correctly in the HUD, then if you take a real-world location and put the aircraft over point A and look at point B, if in real-life it hits the 20 degree line on the HUD, then in the sim it should also hit the 20 degree line. If the vertical scaling is correct and not compressed, that should then mean that the point at B is the correct visual distance away, and so flying over anything between that point and where the aircraft currently is should fly-by at the correct rate, and give the feeling of speed. If the world or vertical scaling is off, then this affects how many pixels the scenery moves for a given distance, and directly affects the feeling of speed. In VR this should be more noticeable due to depth rendering, but you can see it if you look out the left/right side. If you know the FoV and the size of a specific object and its distance from the aircraft, you can time the time it takes for the object to pass the FoV at a certain speed and see if it matches the computed time (the best way is to use a ship TACAN and fly a straight line such that the ship is e.g. 0.5 NM away at the closest point. This way you can accurately calculate how long the ship should be visible for when looking exactly to the side and flying by.

Edited my post above to add A-10C II information. More aircraft failing during not-excessive high g maneuvers: Vampire (supersonic climb, 1952): F-14A (supersonic fly-by followed by high-g turn). Officially the engine disintegrated, but the timing of it is intriguing to say the least.

F-18: impossible (unless there is a way to override the FBW - I don't know how to do that). Rolling g had no effect. JF-17: ripped off the air-to-ground stores and centerline fuel tank by flying in the wrong mode and pulling g. Pulled over +8 g but I think I lost the stores around +7.5 g (consistent with F-5 test). Aircraft otherwise intact and flying normally. Rolling g had no effect. F-5: pulled the wings off with max bomb payload (AIM-9P, Mk 82, and Mk-83 on the wings) and pulling +7.65 g. Pull was smooth but fairly rapid (~2 g/sec onset). Required dive to 500 kts to achieve otherwise it bled speed before the g could build. Rolling g had no effect. A-10C II: aircraft stalls before excessive g can build. Aircraft dived in hard turns to try and maximize g loads but couldn't exceed approx. +6 g. Rolling g had no effect. High negative g appeared to not have any effect.

Challenge accepted. I have most fixed-wing modules, so I'm going to spend a few hours breaking them all. I've seen many sim pilots flying and they literally "yank and bank". Smooth flying doesn't come naturally to some people, and it is something that needs to be learned. It's highly likely it's the way they're handling the aircraft. Instantaneous g forces are a thing in DCS, so if you suddenly pull the stick back, even if the sustained g would be at the limit for that speed, altitude, and stick deflection, the sudden onset can be what is breaking things. I flew the F-86 and F-16 last night and was not exactly gentle nor strictly observing the limitations (the joys of simming) but I still handle the controls like I'm flying IRL and neither of them came to harm after being thrown around the sky. I'm totally convinced I should have shed the wing tanks of both aircraft at least once, or at the very least bent something.

A point many pilots don't understand! As I say in my sig... "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Differing signal strength?!