Tiger-II

Deka have taken the "real-life or nothing" line, which is totally understandable. As was mentioned further up, many aircraft "can" carry lots of things, but in service they never have for one reason or another. Some capabilities are "just because", and others were maybe original design options but then never used. There are many examples where an aircraft was supposed to carry something, then it didn't materialize because the situation or doctrine changed, or technology simply advanced. Missiles/rockets on the inboard pylons have been discussed numerous times before. They may be smaller rockets, but they are dirtier and cause problems (it's not simply smoke but particles of rocket propellant which are like hard small stones and with the rotational velocity of the fan blades, damages the engine like grains of sand). Even the gun has potential to disrupt engine flow, which is why it is mounted so far back. I think they experimented with an intake deflector, but it was more trouble than it was worth.

Hi, I performed an unrestricted climb last night, and was unable to see out the canopy passing about 20000 ft. I used defog, but it took about 5 minutes to clear enough to see while at 45000 ft. Is there any way to prevent fogging before it happens?

The other consideration is the relative angle between the target and the seeker. I'm not sure what it is for SD-10, but AMRAAM is +/- 60 deg. IIRC, so if the missile has to maneuver such that the target ends up outside of the seeker cone, the missile is physically incapable of keeping its seeker pointing at the target, and loses lock. What happens in the track appears to be valid.

Hi, Has something changed recently with AB light-off at high AoA? When flying at relatively low speed and against the AoA limiter, I can no longer engage AB without reducing AoA to below +15 degrees?

All flight controls are hard to obtain right now due to the release of FS2020 and demand from that (it requires a stick to fly - no keyboard support - so everyone went nuts and bought up global stock for the last year). F-5 weapons system is pretty basic, but it means that you, the pilot, must understand weapons release profiles as you need to manually fly the aircraft onto the target in order to have successful hits. It is actually easier than it sounds once you understand what's going on, but will sharpen your flying skills as accuracy in maneuvering counts. On modern fighters such as the F-16, F-18, and JF-17, among many bomb-aiming modes they have CCIP mode of bombing (Continuously Computed Impact Point) which is point-and-drop aiming for bombs and greatly simplifies the roll-on onto target (though there are still things you need to do in order to be combat-effective and not get shot down, or blown up by your own bombs). The F-5 will teach everything you need to know regarding the flying side of combat. F-16, etc., are just cherry on the cake as the systems do all the calculations leaving you to just fly the aircraft (not to mention FBW and flight envelope protections that allow you to max perform the aircraft without too much worry). JF-17 is a potent aircraft, and one of my favorites. F-14 is similar vintage to F-5, but there is a reason the F-14 is a two-crew aircraft. The F-14 in single-player missions is great fun to fly, and you can switch seats so you can act as RIO as well as fly the aircraft. In MP, you're required to fly with a second human pilot. F-16 and F-18 have full FBW with envelope protections, and due to how the FBW works on each, they allow you to do some interesting maneuvers that would be harder to achieve in non-FBW aircraft without departing (that is to say, lose control or stall). The F-18 is famous for pirouetting, which is achieved at low speed/high AoA and then applying full roll input. This prompts full rudder input by the FBW, and causes the aircraft to rotate around the yaw axis. F-16, F-18, and JF-17 have AoA protections, but high AoA in combat is a curse as it increases drag, so you need to resist the temptation to just pull on the limiter otherwise you just dump all your airspeed and put yourself at a disadvantage. JF-17 is definitely worth looking at (it is by far the most complete 4th gen. aircraft in DCS right now, and very capable in multiple roles), and the F-18 (its capability is increasing all the time). Both are capable of air-to-air refuelling. For purely air-to-ground work, you can't beat the A-10C II. It has just received an update, and is just a total "bomb truck". A HOTAS is required for all 4th gen. aircraft.

Not as far as I'm aware, no.

The F-5 is a trainer aircraft (lead-in fighter training) or in some cases a front-line fighter, depending on the country. All aircraft in DCS are "study level", and in most cases will exceed anything you've encountered in FSX/P3D to date. The flight models are generally very good (even where there are issues), and smoke every other flight sim on the market even in 2021. As written above, just get the modules you're interested in and start flying. F2P ends later tonight (UTC), so just get them and try them! As a module, the F-5 is analogue, no computers, so bombing is done the old way of tables and flight profiles. If you master the F-5, everything else is easy.

I had this recently with bombs. Everything looked good; no release. I reloaded. Fine after that. I think there is a bug with jettison that can cause stores not be able to be pickled afterwards.

Specifically, if you're in AB and pull the power back such that you kill the AB but don't cause the nozzles to come out of MIL, then pushing the throttles over the detent will NOT result in burner light-off. You need to get the nozzles to move out of MIL before you can re-engage AB. I can't decide if this is accurate or not.

I think there was a discussion previously about carrying four sidewinders, but nothing was changed in this area.

The requirement to connect the g-suit was added recently and I missed it in the patch notes. I had some interesting flights until I remembered the discussion about adding it!

Huh! Not how I remember it previously! I really do need to fly it! It has been years...

I agree with the above. I tried the Spit a little while ago during the free-fly event, and only managed about 30 minutes with it, but the ground handling was definitely very strange. It seemed worse than the P-51 when it was first released (if anyone remembers the issues back then). The P-47 is definitely better behaved. Speaking of the P-51... I need to dig it out of the hangar.

Seems there isn't a defined glide speed for the P-47. All I can find is "maintain speed well above the stall". I guess they didn't bother much with the finer points of gliding back then??? http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

"Engine controls - interconnected" Link throttle and prop for landing?? Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes... while I don't doubt that it could be quite sensitive to mis-handling, I'd think it is more robust than we are seeing in the sim otherwise there would be a lot of destroyed engines IRL, and AFAIK that simply isn't the case (and if it was, those engines would be replaced with something better pretty darn quick). Something that is often forgotten is these WW2 birds were flown by pilots with very little experience, and they'd need to be fairly robust to survive war and the low-time pilots that were flying them. I really think the sim is over-exaggerating these things.

That sounds like there is quite a bit left to do. The live streams of it last year made me think 6 months or so to release. Looking forward to it nonetheless!

Throttle curve seems weird... You need to crack open the throttle, then prime the engine. I had trouble at first, but it was because I was over-priming/flooding the engine. It would catch but not run. At sea level and OAT of +15 deg. C I prime the engine three times. Next, I hold the inertia starter to ENERGIZE for 15 seconds. She starts every time.

Don't pull the power all the way off. Just pull "a bit" off so she starts to bleed speed as you cross the threshold. As the speed decays gently lift the nose up to the 3-point attitude and let it settle onto the ground. Once you have touchdown then pull off the power, add some backstick to hold the tail down and apply gentle braking. I prefer flying a curved approach.

What does mission debrief say? If you damaged the bearings, it will say so there.

Thanks! I saw another post that says this is accurate to the real engine due to it having a single main bearing.

We would be here all day and face forum bans if we posted what we thought. There are threads galore about it in the JF-17 forum.

I did both. First, I attempt the inverted spin from a loop. I show the slats are deploying as a result of high AoA, then after the second attempt I unload and show the slats retracting in response to reduced AoA. The aircraft does not behave as described in the OP video. Second, I show a +1 g stall, then attempt an upright spin (but it doesn't properly enter a spin state). I did provide some commentary as I was flying but it got split out to a seperate track and isn't in the video uploaded to YouTube.

Do you want a straight stall, or want me to try and replicate what we are discussing here? What we are discussing here is inverted spin entry during a loop maneuver, but DCS doesn't simulate this specific phenomenon.

We can stall in the sim. All it means is the wing is no longer producing lift. The video linked showed a stall with the aircraft climbing nearly vertically. The problem with this is it puts the gravity vector immediately behind the aircraft and will simply result in a tail slide/tumble. What we're discuissing here is an accelerated stall during a looping maneuver, where there was insufficient airspeed at entry, and over the top the aircraft experienced an accelerated stall. Due to the AoA effects of this particular aircraft, and the position of the gravity vector, it results in an increase in negative pitch attitude, negative AoA, which causes the aircraft to climb (fight gravity) and lose yet even more airspeed, and enter a phase of flight that results in inverted spin entry (remembering that at the onset of the "nose down" event the aircraft is inverted). There are more details in the paper I linked. Nice spin demos (left and right, upright, but different *entry* to what we are discussing here).