Tiger-II

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?!

That's the standby reticule.

I must say I tend to neglect the temperature. I tried creating a mission the other day at STP and couldn't set the temperature less than +20. Even connecting external power doesn't correct the issue.

This raises another interesting point: if the Sabres were chasing MiGs doing 1100 kph in a dive and *catching up*, this suggests that the Sabre (in the sim) is under-performing because flying > 900 kph or so it suffers uncommanded roll, which should be due to Mach and not TAS. It would seem that the Sabre, so long as 1100 kph was < M 0.92, was fine in this regime of flight at such high speeds??? I agree that the aircraft are otherwise too stable. This is a problem all sims experience. I'd like to see a flight model that has greater instability where it is expected. To recover a Sabre from a spin was apparently a case of center the controls and wait. I'm not sure if opposite rudder was required or helped, but the description I read made it appear it wasn't required.

900 kph is a TAS limit. This could even equate to approx. Mach 0.7 if you're low enough. Mach number - you're safe at anything below Mach 0.85 with drop tanks. It's the TAS you've got to watch unless you're very high, but that's hard to do with drop tanks and even harder if they've got any fuel in them.

If you have the right climb rate/speed your IAS should be slowly reducing while Mach number increases. As you climb, your vertical speed will reduce from a max of ~45 m/s between 0-5000 ft or so down to around 10-15 m/s at 30000 ft. When you get to about Mach 0.80 you want to climb to maintain that all the way up to 50,000 ft (constant Mach climb). You may need to experiment as climb speed and max alt is weight-dependent. If IAS reaches ~500 kph then you need to pitch to maintain that instead (min indicated speed). If you're maintaining a constant IAS then as you climb Mach will slowly increase. Again, upon reaching around Mach 0.80 you want to switch to a constant Mach climb. The typical "Mach transition altitude" is around 30000 ft +/- 5000 ft depending on the airspeed you started with and how well you managed your speed. Max performing climbs is only something you can perfect with practice. I often fly lots of climb/descent profiles trying to minimize fuel burn and maximize the altitude I can fly at without burning too much fuel to maintain altitude. If you're clean with just full internal fuel, you should be able to make 40000 ft. As you burn fuel you can climb higher.

This isn't correct. The normal flight limit load is I think +8 g, but the manuals state it is +7 g to extend the life of the airframe. Thus, if +8 g is the normal max g load limit, then the design structural load limit is +12 g (1.5 safety factor). This is an absolute limit, and something WILL break if this value is exceeded. Fighter aircraft are not built with such large safety limits as commercial airliners. They are already very strong structures, and they are also built to be as light as possible, so they are closer to their ultimate limits. Boeing 777 is designed for a normal max load limit of +3.5 g. The safety factor is 2.5, and the ultimate load is at +8.75 g. In testing, it broke at 154% - 4% above the design ultimate load limit. No-one builds structures stronger than necessary as it means weight, and with aircraft, weight is the enemy. If the sim is breaking things at +12 g, I'd say this is OK because you've already grossly exceeded the operating limit.

It depends what the release interval is for the bombs, and if there is any wind. My missions are without wind due to the F-5 FM problems (though I think this should be fixed now). I usually drop in a nose-low attitude at about 400 kts. I haven't had a problem dropping bombs generally, but you can see they want to collide when falling off the rack.

Prior to the files being locked, I found just halving the values for the F-5 AI afterburner was sufficient to make it more reasonable.

The sim has too much drag. You can see this in many flight conditions and not just turning. Try doing level acceleration, or flying climb profile (MIL or MAX). It can't match the published performance data. The reason UP gives better turn performance is because it eliminates the drag induced by the slats when they extend. It maintains energy for longer improving the turn. Slats are supposed to assist with lift, but the problem we have in the sim is we bleed speed so quickly any benefit gained is lost due to loss of speed. I have no idea why, but too much drag is a chronic problem in any sim you care to name. It blows my mind why this is so wrong so often.

LMAO! Yes... the AI is outrageously OP. The F-5 AI has a similar problem.

Since they developed DCS into a unified sim, I think you'll find MAC won't ever exist. It will be a campaign for DCS if it ever appears.

There is no substitute for smooth flying. If you just pull and relax you do two things: increase AoA more than necessary increasing drag, and you'll make yourself sick. If you fly smooth, pull and hold the turn, you'll stay with your opponent better. Also, don't get too close to whoever you're chasing. You want to stick with them but also be constantly looking for opportunity to get a shot. If you're flying against another human, this is even more critical. If they know what they're doing they'll fly in such a way as to prevent missile shots and will defend against gun shots.

I trim nose down before takeoff. Yes, requires more aft stick to rotate, but it's more balanced once it gets airborne. I still need to trim, but not quite as much. Also ensure you are rotating at the correct airspeed. If you're heavy, you'll be towards 200 kts before she'll fly. Also check you have the correct flap setting for takeoff (it should say AUTO). Visually check the slats are extended and the flaps are in takeoff position. At ~150 kts I pull aft stick and hold it until the nose starts to come up, then I ease the stick forward and just wait for it to fly off the runway. I hold the pitch attitude, let it accelerate, and clean up. Don't forget also to extend the nose gear leg for takeoff (switch on the left sidewall). It raises the nose about 5 degrees.

If you want to start with an older aircraft to learn the basics then the F-86 is a good compromise. The F-5 is a fun module, but as stated, it has some serious problems if you really start digging. It is nonetheless a useable module in spite of the issues it has, and can be used for air-to-ground and air-to-air quite well. Just don't fly against the F-5 AI as it is massively over-powered (totally unrealistic). My #2 recommendation is the JF-17. By far the most complete module available, and a massive array of weaponry, including anti-ship.

I think the F-5 is not quite balanced correctly on its mains. The pitch down seems too strong, suggesting the CoG is slightly too far forward of the main gear.

We are on BS3 now, so I can't see why ED couldn't produce an F-5E v2. I'd pay to see that (and some proper bug fixes and improvements to the flight model).

Small wing = higher wing loading = must fly it faster. It's that simple. I do think (know, but I don't have solid data to prove it) that the F-5 as modelled has too much drag. It's slow to accelerate in level flight at max power, and doesn't have the climb performance it should have. It can easily go supersonic in a shallow dive (M 1.4) but ours struggles to get above Mach 1.1 in even a steep dive. There is a nice cockpit video of a civilian F-5 doing an airshow routine and he's pushing 600 kts without afterburner without trying. If they could address this, the F-5 would be awesome. For some reason though the flight model has been pretty much abandoned since release. It took years for them to fix the problem of engine performance being linked to groundspeed (they only fixed this last year I think it was). It's definitely under-performing in the turn fight due to the way it bleeds speed. There are some other aspects to the flight characteristics that would be great if they could be addressed, but at this point I think we can forget it.

You'll get the hang of it. I know it is incorrect as it is, but I "hand wave" it away by thinking it is a limitation of the system and therefore has error which I need to account for.

There is no fuel in the wings, so it's a question of what stores you have loaded at the time. Rolling g limits are a thing, and it appears they've either added it or tightened it up. If you roll sufficiently aggressively you can pull the stores off (I have done this in the A-10 and the F-5 intentionally). If you're fast, pulling g to the pitch limit, and then rolling as well, you can very easily overload the wing (and in fact it is a prohibited maneuver in pretty much any aircraft I can think of). If you want to be safe, don't pull more than about +4 g if you want to roll as well. If you're flying ACM then you probably won't be pulling much over this anyway otherwise you'll be bleeding speed the entire time (undesirable in itself). If you have stores, then +2.5 g is a reasonably safe limit to roll. The g load at the stores can be +2 or +3 g higher than what you're experiencing in the cockpit at the roll centerline. If you make an abrupt roll maneuver on top of all of this (instantaneous load), an overload condition is very likely. Let's say you're pulling +5 g with wing stores and then roll - the wing can be experiencing +8 g or more, which has exceeded the g limit, and will either cause damage, pull the stores off, or worse. Try and make it habit to unload before rolling aggressively if you're pulling at the g limit. You certainly can't put in full roll input above +1 g unless you want to break something. This isn't to say you can't roll and pull g. You can. It's a question of "how much". If you don't pull pitch to the g limit and then roll, you can do more than you think. A clean aircraft can pull +7 g safely, but with wing stores is limited to +5 g or so, so your margin is much lower with anything hanging off a pylon. It also assumes coordinated flight. Rolling can induce an increasing yaw rate, and often sustained roll rates are also prohibited due to this (side loads can exceed pylon limits). I appreciate there is a lot to consider, but to keep it simple: if you want to pull g and maneuver aggressively, you can only do so with a clean jet.

I use force trim (center position) in all helicopters in DCS and it works great! What you must remember is once you RELEASE the trimmer you must return your stick/pedals to center to continue otherwise it just ignores the input. Trim reset works best when doing a quick-stop with the collective all the way down. This minimizes torque forces and makes it easier to react to aircraft attitude changes as a result of the control positions changing. What screws up flight controls in ALL sims is the fact we have spring-return-to-center controls. The majority of flight controls IRL do not move when trimmed; it merely eliminates the forces required to hold the controls in that position.