Theodore42

In the Viper the correct procedure is to land in the crab. Aside from that, do everything normally. It should straighten itself out on its own. I think the max crosswind component is 25 kts. There is a page or two on it in the HAF manual. I did a really old video on it, before all the landing gear updates, but I cover all the info from the manual. I drank too much coffee so I sound like a crazy person. EDIT: Everything different from the video makes landing in the crosswind EASIER! Current version of DCS is much easier than depicted.

Ya I also think the MP was too high with RPMs too low. 2200 RPMs at 50MP, when the engine blew, is gonna break something. But at the beginning of the clip, 2800 RPM at 50 MP, should run fine. Keep the engine set to "maximum continuous power" which is 2700 RPMs at 46MP and then don't mess with it until you need military power, which is 3000 RPMs at Full Throttle. The DCS manual has this info on page 32. But you can dl the irl manual and in the back it has a bunch of charts for engine settings. Search the internet for "North American P-51 Mustang Pilot Training Manual" and it should come up. The charts are for fuel consumption when planning a mission but it has a bunch of safe combinations of RPM and MP if you want to get a feel for how to run your engine at different RPMs and MPs. Those charts have also been posted on these forums if you want to search here. Asking about engine settings always brings out the nerds. I notice that your rudder isn't completely trimmed. The P-51 is VERY sensitive to rudder trim, so focus on that instead of worrying about throttle settings. If you are accelerating or decelerating in the Mustang then you are also going to need to be trimming the rudder. I don't know of any other aircraft like that and it affects the Mustang's speed a lot.

If you're talking about an IR missile dogfight the Viper is pretty weak. Anything that has a high instantaneous turn does really well. If you're talking about guns only then the Viper is pretty strong. Also, AI abilities seem varied across all the aircraft. Humans too, of course. Probably the F-15C is the strongest AI vs the Viper imo. As for PvP, many players generally think the F-15C is strongest vs F-16 because it's an angles fighter with acceleration that keeps up with the Viper. Also the M2K is up there in PvP, but the M2K AI seems kinda weak relative to most other aircraft.

I can't help but to notice there are quite a few upvotes on these posts, especially for this forum. The Phantom is a recently released module that's been really popular and the MiG-21 is the natural nemesis of the Phantom. There really needs to be a way for players to get into the MiG-21 to fight the Phantom. I've got several modules that people call "trash" and "incomplete" or "out of date," and they're never as bad as they're portrayed. But in my experience the MiG-21 is the oldest, least updated, and the most deserving of a pedanticist's criticisms. I'm absolutely willing to put up with a lot of small errors and missing features for the sake of 3rd party developers, but the two things that need updated for sure are the FM and the sound. FM - too much turn rate at low speeds - needs to be fixed. I'm fine flying the MiG-21 like you're supposed to and that does evade the problems with the FM most of the time. BUT if you ever get into a rolling scissors with a Phantom you're gonna get a crazy advantage. I'd like to see a 21 with an updated FM do a rolling scissors with a Phantom to see if it is valid option or not. Sound is archaic. Maybe it was even when it was released, which was forever ago. Updating those two things I think would go a long way to making the MiG-21 a viable competitor to the Phantom.

I did a video describing and demonstrating the USAF Viper demo (from the AFMAN). The flight model is a out of date but the current FM makes the maneuvers MUCH easier! I'm going to do another one when the Viper leaves EA. Because I'm bad at quoting posts apparantly:

It's a great aerobatic aircraft. If you want to do a bunch of snap rolls or spins or maneuvers from Aresti notation, then this is what you're looking for. It showcases the standards of ED's flight model. Competitor's products won't even do the right things when making normal inputs for aerobatic maneuvers. Search Youtube for "Yak-52 aerobatics" and if that looks like fun then you should get it.

Both ED and RAZBAM lose money from this. They both hurt when DCS users get refunds. Sounds like some Machiavellian <profanity> going down would be more fun to watch if we knew what was actually happening. But there is a really high chance they'll sort it out since there is so much money on the table.

They fixed a few minor bugs fairly recently, so it isn't completely abandoned. There is a wish list though, which implies they CAN add, or at least modify, SOMETHING, if they wanted to. I posted a landing gear update request there just now.

Hi! I'd like to request that the Yak-52 get the updates to the new landing gear model that is being implemented to other modules. This is an amazing module. I wasn't expecting to like it and just bought it because it was on sale and I had been flying the Extra 330 in a competing flight sim. SO GLAD I DID! These are the reasons I think the Yak-52 should get the updated landing gear: 1. The Yak-52 is a great training aircraft. I didn't buy this module because it is a trainer. But DCS is a PREMIUM simulator. The kinds of people that are attracted to DCS modules are going to do all the checklists, checkouts, training flights as described in the manual. I had an unexpected blast learning the Yak-52 and flying it as a trainer. 2. The Yak-52 is the only aerobatic aircraft in DCS. It excellently showcases ED's commitment to the flight model. I had no idea how inferior DCS's competitors were until I bought the Yak-52. It does what it should! I make the same mistakes real pilots make, and I can correct them based on advice from real pilots to real pilots. None of these things I experienced playing on the competing sim. 3. Warbirds are hard to fly. In the most sophisticated flight sim on the market, they are the hardest. As soon as I took off the first time I recognized the value of this trainer. The low speeds and complex (but still easy) engine management make learning energy management easy. When everything is so slow the wisdom of certain actions becomes obvious very fast. You can't get this level of feedback flying a warbird. imo the biggest hurdle people have learning warbirds is understanding how much energy you're losing from your choices. If you fly dumb in a warbird you just lose. If you fly dumb in a Yak-52, you are either overspeeding or stalling. 4. DCS is an environment created by it's modules. The second terrain released was the Nevada Test and TRAINING Range. Training has been part of the DCS vision from the very beginning. 5. The La-7 will be out soon. Wouldn't it be nice to promote a Russian trainer, profit, hype a 3rd party's module sales, then increase your sales back again? A virtuous cycle of $$$ 6. Squadrons, streamers, and online players do training missions together. Getting people to play with others or stream to an audience creates an external, social motive to keep coming back to DCS. And the shallow learning curve of a trainer minimizes the frustration factor. 7. The aerobatic nature of the Yak-52, the multiplayer aspect of DCS, and the competitive nature of people that like airplanes massively expand the Yak-52's e-peen factor. 8. The Yak-52 just has weird landing gear. People see the Yak-52 in the game for the first time and they think, wtf is wrong with that thing? So people are just going to be looking at (and judging) the landings more than other aircraft. If the Yak-52 looks realistic on a botched landing, people are going to remember it. Landing out in the Yak-52 is really fun. I like to find small fields in Normandy and see how short I can land. In the DCS Pantheon of aircraft the Yak-52 has a clear and distinct place! Adding the new gear model to the Yak-52 will add much more value to DCS than it will cost imo!

I saw on the History channel an interview with a fighter pilot who fought in the Pacific. He reported that the Japanese were "excellent stick and rudder pilots" but that they didn't have the training to jink vigorously or to fly in any non-standard way. This gave the Americans a skill advantage. So, in that pilot's opinion, the ace AI would be exactly accurate to the Pacific Theater

I think in the 20-25k altitude the P-51 has more BHP that pretty much anything. The P-51 is strongest sustaining high speeds. So at high altitudes fly to your instruments, mostly the climb indicator. If you climb too fast, you burn off your speed too fast, and you get less altitude for the energy used. And since you're going fast things have a problem keeping up with you. But if you end up going slow or getting into a furball then the P-51 isn't going to be as strong as other aircraft. When you hear people say the P-51 uses "boom and zoom" tactics, they mean flying higher and faster than your enemy, diving down on them and "booming" them, then "zooming" up and away with your excess energy and superior airframe. If you deviate from these tactics then the P-51 tends to not be as strong. Of course flying online is whatever you can get away with while having fun; I'm just describing the tactics behind the design. As for the fuel, the manual says to keep 25 gallons in the fuselage tank for better turn performance which is about 76% fuel. If you fly the aircraft as I described then 76% fuel is fine for performance but if you want to do crazy maneuvering in the P-51, a lot less fuel helps. (20% is still like 500 lbs or something).

A lot of people seem to not be adjusting to the new landing physics so well, but I think it's great. I took the opportunity to learn the "Tennessee Waltz" maneuver - driving up the runway in a side slip on one wheel. I got some cool external shots of the aircraft bouncing around on the runway. It looks pretty realistic to me. At the very end of the video the Mustang bounces a little on one wheel and then it bucks across the runway. Looks just like something you would see in old wartime aviation crash films. Good new technology

I read the reason ED modeled the Mosquito's undercarriage physics first is because the Mosquito's gear is really stiff. So now that ED is expanding to more difficult gears to model, there does seem to be a lot of janky-ness with the Mustang's wheel physics now. New features are always like this and they always get polish eventually. As for the issue of stopping, I'm really not feeling it. The tail wheel seems much more prone to lift up and break when it thwacks the ground. But I chalk that up to the new janky wheel physics being too mushy. As far as coming to a complete stop, I'm not feeling inhibited in any way. It does sound like too much messing with the brake axis. Try doing the opposite of what you're attempting to do, just to make sure you understand what's going on. If you get unexpected results they will probably point you in the right direction.

TF-51 Cuban 8, Immelmann, and Hammerhead.

I'm not sure OPs methodology is sound but I've noticed the EM charts for jets with afterburners seem to indicate the max sustained turn rate is at or near the G limit, not the corner speed.