Theodore42

Interesting article, it seems the F-15EX is not going to have the CFTs but maybe they'll flex to them if needed. The article also pointed out that F-15Cs have been deployed with CFTs in Iceland and Alaska, implying that the F-15E's mission may require versatility when it comes to CFTs rather than "the F-15E is a bomber PERIOD, FULL STOP, END OF LINE." The Pentagon is in a weird place when it comes to air power. They're just now getting the F-35 deployed, the fantasy project of politicians using a cookie cutter solution to every branch of the Military's air superiority problem. The other side of the coin is that the face of war is changing. No more skirmishes but now militaries are preparing for large scale warfare. Does the F-15E have the ability to penetrate an expansive, modern air defense network operated by a professional military? The cookie cutter solution of the F-35 is stealth. It can, in theory, overcome air defense radar to be highly effective in a combat. While some have bought into the F-35 theory, others have not. The A-10, scheduled to be retired in the early '90, then the late '90s, then it was upgraded and scheduled to retire again (and then again I think?).... NOW it is scheduled to be rewinged by 2030 to utilize modern weapons. So a general somewhere thinks he's going to get more out of the A10 than he is out of the F35. The F-18 got upgraded to the Superhornet. The F-16 has a million variants that just keep coming out, and the subject of the article, the F-15EX, is an up to date Strike Eagle. These airframes express the peak expression of decades of research and if you can upgrade their power and electronics you have a sure thing. Generals like that. MAYBE a fleet of stealth aircraft can overcome modern air defenses. But if not there is a backup plan. The article reports that the F-15EX can right now carry 12 AMRAAMS but experimental pylons are being tested to carry up to 16 AMRAAMS. IMO this implies that the strategy of US air power is to use the stealth F-35 for the majority of ground attack and the F-15EX for BVR ACM. They don't need the CFTs because they aren't penetrating deep into enemy airspace to attack high value ground targets. But they CAN be converted to a bomber in short order should the need arise. (Maybe a squadron of F-16s have been doing SEAD strikes in the area for a few days.) Thanks for posting the article. I feel like the Pentagon has been going all in on the F-35 with one hand but grasping at the legacy airframes with the other. But seriously, when in warfare has deducing a single solution out of the ether to go with a novel, untested strategy gone well? Armies haven't fought on this Earth for real in 75 years. The generals are right to grasp at their legacy airframes and I'm glad to read there seems to be a lot of thought behind it.

I know some people have started speaking more generally about the FM but imo the vast majority of people empathizing with the OP's problem sound like how it feels to me when I forget to set T/O trim. If I set my curves to be comfortable during AAR then I don't have the precision I need during BFM. For example, imagine a turn fight: The difference between gaining and losing 2-3 knots per second is tiny, maybe even less than a tenth of a G. So after just 10 seconds of a turn your precision will have either given you 20-30kts or taken away 20-30 knots. A 40-60 knot difference after just 10 seconds in a turn fight is pretty valuable and I personally don't have the stick range to do that with curves that are comfortable for AAR. Also, AAR just happens at the one speed but BFM happens across (potentially) the entire spectrum of permitted speeds +/- 50 knots. So imo flatter curves end up giving more precision doing mud hen things even if AAR may be a little uncomfortable. EDIT: Ya when I tested the CAS I didn't notice anything and figured it was still WIP. To test it when implemented, set the pitch ratio to emergency but turn off the pitch CAS as well. My understanding is that is what should give you the fun.

Ok so I've read and people have said that at high angles of attack you have the option to roll with the rudders in the F-15. Now in the F-15C I do this and it works as advertised. Honestly I think it usually isn't helpful in the C even if you can but the F-15E is chunkier and I feel like I get more gains using the rudder to roll at high alpha and slow speed. But Betty says "Yaw Rate" right when I'm starting to make gains. Is this just advisory, like the Altitude warning? Or is it a warning that you're violating normal operating limitations? I haven't departed the E yet but I've gotten some slippy behavior when playing with yaw a lot. Also, does anyone know if things like high alpha moments of yaw are still WIP in the FM? Is the FM already pretty well worked out or are there some big updates coming, like in the other EAs?

No this isn't true of any high performance fighter since WWII. At top speeds the airframes produce so much lift that parasite drag is much more of a factor at military power than induced drag is from gross weight. F16 at 15,000 ft stores gross weight knots at MIL 500 lbs of fuel clean 20,693 533 7163 clean 27,355 531 500 7,507 27,906 481 500 8,512 28,911 478 F18 at 15,000 ft stores gross weight knots at MIL 432 lbs of fuel clean 25,986 539 10,479 clean 36,032 536 432 6526 32,051 479 432 10,512 36,037 474 (For the Hornet the stores are 8*mk82 and 8*mk83, the difference in speed is but 5 knots yet the difference in weight is 4000lbs. So at MIL 4000lbs is nothing. But those pylons a human could play football with are what slows fighter jets down... at MIL.) Comparing the Viper and Hornet at military power isn't fair because the Viper's airframe produces much less lift and therefore has much less parasite drag than the Hornet. But as you can see at military power neither aircraft is much affected by gross weight. So comparing the airframes at corner speed rather than MIL would be much more apt. The parasite drag would have less of an effect on speed and the induced drag from the added weight would get pretty nasty I bet. Then you could really compare the airframes

As for the increased drag from fuselage stores at high speeds, I've noticed both the Hornet and Viper hold the stores from their pylons at a slightly downward angle from the chord of the airframe. But the FUSELAGE stores for the Hornet conform to the shape of the fuselage and point at a slightly different angle. If the Viper and Hornet's pylon's stores are calibrated for max stability at the maximum safe speed for the stores, then perhaps (I assume) that also means they're producing the least amount of drag. In other words, at top speed they're pointed exactly into the wind for the least amount of drag possible while the airframe has an AoA of 1G. The fuselage stores have to conform to the angle of the airframe so they can't be calibrated to minimize drag. This would be why fuselage stores perform badly at high speeds-- they're sideways into the wind. At 600+ knots just a degree or two of AoA would produce a lot of drag. Sparrows and even AMRAAMs have great big fins on them you don't want flat into the wind. Since the Hornet's airframe produces more lift at lower speeds it isn't a big deal to have stores / pylons that produce lots of drag. At slower, more fuel efficient speeds the drag is relatively less inhibiting than at higher speeds. As far as weight goes, 2x Mk-84s aren't going to reduce your top speed very much just because they add 4000lbs. They will affect your acceleration and maneuverability, but actual top speed is going to be inhibited much more by the drag they produce than the weight they are. ie, compare top speed of the Viper and Hornet with 10% fuel vs 100% fuel (in other words, WAY more than 4000 lbs). The top speed is going to be basically the same, it just takes longer to get there.

Ok I'm going to be a pedantic aero nerd and call your test arbitrary BECAUSE the F-16 and F-18 have different design philosophies when it comes to lift. The F-18 is low wing-loaded, so it has a lot more wing area that generates lift. This also generates more drag. But MORE lift at lower speeds. The F-16 is a thrust-to-weight ratio fighter... it has tiny wings so less drag at high speeds.... but LESS lift at lower speeds. Compare and contrast the alpha of the Viper and the Hornet at different speeds. The Viper has really high AoA even at 300kts, but past 400 and the Viper's AoA is sleight. So the Viper always gets an advantage in drag when being tested at military power. THEREFORE, to test without being accused by pedantic aviation nerds of being arbitrary, you should compare the fuel economies of all those different stores, not just military power. Use the CRUS page on the Viper's DED and the similar feature on the Hornet to achieve the greatest range. Being fuel efficient with the Viper requires going fast enough that your AoA isn't going to drag you into the mud. That means more power is required to overcome the AoA drag during max range flight. The Hornet on the other hand, utilizing a low wing loaded design philosophy, generates lift much better at lower speeds. So the Hornet can keep the engines at a lower fuel flow with equal amounts of drag from the stores. The drag from the AoA will be less and the relative range will more more. That's my theory anyway.

Check back your replay and you might find that despite being in the correct position you're still wobbling around such that the boom operator is chasing your fuel receptacle (?) around. There is a lot of room for play even in the correct position according to the lights. I suggest that when the lights indicate to maneuver, don't follow the lights. Instead, look at the tanker and fly in formation with it to the position the lights are indicating. When the lights say you're good, just look at the tanker itself and stick to it, inch for inch (MAXIMUM FOCUS at this point). If you watch the replay you'll see the boom move to you to connect and this takes time. Once you make contact you can chill a little and float around a bit, probably focusing on the throttle as you start to take on pounds.

You could use the P-51 manual as a template: In the back there are a bunch of charts by aircraft weight that includes all the altitudes, engine settings and their ranges. Also it is described how to calculate fuel use on the ground and during the climb. You also have to consider headwinds / other weather stuff. If you live in a country where it's legal, you could just get the F-16 manual supplemental that has 1000s of charts and the drag indices of all the stores and the method by which you calculate the range of any given loadout.

From AAF Manual 51-127-5 : The 4 inboard guns have 400 rounds and the two outboard guns have 270. So when you run outta ammo on the outboard guns you have 130 rounds left in each remaining gun.

Hey thanks for the reply! imo at 2:30 the overshoot was because I was at max power the whole time and should have throttled down. When you're behind a target and that close I think spoiling your speed is correct rather than executing a BFM because you want to get a kill and not play games. imo the cost of spoiling your speed is far less than the geometry you lose doing BFM because the Viper's acceleration is so excellent. But I could be wrong because angle fighters can spoil their speed too, especially when doing PvP rather than AI.

Yes, the thing I did RIGHT after posting was go to the Hornet forum where someone had posted an EM chart of the Viper suggesting its best instantaneous turn rate is 401kCAS. But when I jumped in and tested it out it seems like the turn rate is faster but due to the high turn radius it doesn't seem to help in terms of turning room. No that was the whole point of my post, and every post I've ever made about dogfighting with the Viper on this forum. The Viper is an energy fighter; you fly it differently than a low wing loaded fighter (aka angle fighter). Read in "Fighter Combat" by Shaw on low wing loaded vs high thrust-to-weight fighters. It is 30 pages of commentary on how to fly something like the Viper vs an angles fighter like the Hornet or Mirage 2000. My post says how to utilize the Viper best for these tactics mentioned in Shaw. You conclude "You should lose every time guns-only against one of those opponents unless the pilot is unskilled" by judging the F-16 as an angles fighter against actual angles fighters. Of course the Viper is bad when you fly it wrong. The OP is literally asking about how to fight vs the AI. And where are your suggestions? Or criticisms of the tactics I suggest? I don't claim to know the exact, correct method which is why I just threw up a list of dos and don'ts. Do you disagree with any of the dos or don'ts? Or have any to add? Of course not, you don't even understand that there are different tactics to be utilized by a thrust-to-weight fighter rather than an angles fighter. Don't feel bad, it's really rare to find someone that understands it. That's why I make so many extensive posts on the subject. Here is the EM chart document that was posted on the Hornet forum. Note on page 7 "Relative Turn/Climb Tradeoff" where the F-16 is. That chart means unloaded acceleration in the F-16 beats everything. See how often I bring up acceleration maneuvers in my post? This makes ME RIGHT and YOU WRONG Subsonic EM Diagrams DCS.pdf

imo if you're spending a lot of time pulling 8Gs then you're going "too fast." not really, but you need to turn that speed into an advantage. Sure your turn rate is awesome when pulling 9Gs at 440kCAS but your turn radius is terrible. You will never get turning room on an angles fighter in that situation. The highest turn rate for the Viper is maximum pitch deflection at 330 knots. At SL this is only going to be a little over 7Gs and less the higher you go. It is also really close to the minimum turn radius for the Viper, a LOT smaller than 9Gs at 440. Every Viper pilot should practice at least a minute or two in a slice sustaining 330kCAS with maximum pitch deflection to see what it is like. I bet you lose less altitude than you think. Use this in a fight with an angles fighter: Get into a 2 circle (nose to tail) fight. Time your speed such that you are going 330kCAS when you pass the target's 3-9 line. Do this with a hi yo-yo, loaded roll, AB reduction, fan the brakes, any BFM that slows you down and gives you a geometric advantage, or all of the above. Use a maximum deflection slice to sustain 330kCAS until you pass behind the target. Then you can pitch forward to under 1G to reduce induced lag and accelerate. Because the slice at 330kCAS has a high turn rate and small turn radius you will be close to the target. Therefore the acceleration will zoom you to behind the target (speed will help reduce the angles as long as you're close enough). Then you can use that speed to do whatever BFM you want because you'll have energy on the angles fighter in that situation. It only takes a second to go from 440 to 500 if you want even more speed to do some even crazier BFM. Maybe an Immelmann is in the cards in that situation. THIS is when you want to use just a few seconds of 8-9Gs to utterly terrify your target. If you're always going 440 then you will never be able to use your speed in this way because the distances will be too great. (For example, if you're at an airshow and an F-16 does a flyby at 500 knots 300 feet above the runway, its aspect to you will go form 90 degrees right to 90 degrees left in a few seconds. But if an F-16 flies by at 500 knots 10,000ft above the runway then the aspect will take minutes to go from 90 degrees left to 90 degrees right of you.) I can't help it, I'm going to shamelessly plug my youTube channel: (My voice is gravelly because I'm recovering from that cold everyone is getting)

Ok I see. I understand that IR and Guns training missions start when the bags are empty and the internal tanks are full. Also I believe they practice specific techniques or maneuvers in specific situations (like one starts behind the other) so the dogfight is over faster and the most amount of time is spent on the most important parts, like a musician practicing the 12 hardest measures instead of playing the whole piece every time. I'll pick up this campaign, it sounds like it has some interesting scenarios.

I'll give you some dos and don'ts. Viper wins acceleration from 300-400 knots, so you really want to use that range unless winning the rate fight is easy. Sure the Viper accelerates great above that but so do most other aircraft. The Viper is very powerful when the pitch is a little below the horizon, probably 5-20 degrees down. Turning in that range is called a slice and it is a very powerful maneuver for the Viper. Unloading to under 1G ASAP (stick forward) with the nose 5-20 degrees under the horizon accelerates you like crazy. 10 degrees down and 0.5 G at 300 knots will get you to 400knots in a couple seconds. This is the check and extend and is very powerful for the Viper. This maneuver is mostly about reducing the induced drag by reducing AoA so it is less effective above about 400. Very good at 300 though. Don't turn with the nose above the horizon unless you need to slow down to make turning room. This is a high yo-yo and a very common maneuver for the Viper. A typical error is to bring the nose too far above the horizon causing undue speed loss. As long as you finish this maneuver above 300 knots with the nose below the horizon then you can check and extend to get back your speed. The usual thing that happens after a hi yo-yo in the Viper is a low yo-yo (acceleration maneuver). Out of plane maneuvering is typical for energy fighters like the Viper. If you want to go over the top, do it EXACTLY vertically. Angles fighters like the Hornet and Eagle won't follow you unless they have energy on you, in which case you should have done a check and extend first. Do not accelerate while going vertically but try to sustain your speed as long as possible. In the vertical, roll to whatever angle you want against the target in their turn (aim for a point above and behind them). Make sure you account for enough radius in the turning circle from the target because you are going to come down on them hard and fast and don't want to waste speed trying to get turning room on them. In other words, make sure you don't end up going too fast to turn in behind them. 250 at the apex is what you're aiming for and probably 230 knots at the apex would be the minimum. Much slower than that and you should have started the over the top faster or spent less time in the vertical. (The Viper typically loses pointing straight up vs things with two engines). This sets you up for a check and extend as your nose falls 5-20 degrees below the horizon. Don't go too fast though, else you will waste altitude. 300-330 is plenty fast here and is the minimum turn radius for the Viper so it will preserve your altitude as you pull through the vertical and away from the earth. You have the option to check and extend again as you're coming out of the loop 5-20 degrees below the horizon. If you are going, for example, 450 knots and you want to do an instantaneous turn into the targets turn circle, bleed off speed at a rate that will leave you at around 330 when you are closest to them. (330 is the minimum radius turn speed for the Viper.) When coming close to the target SUSTAIN 330 knots to get behind, even if the target begins to extend away in his turn circle (your line of sight is moving up your canopy). As long as you are directly behind the target spatially (low aspect angle), the increasing HCA (Heading Course Angle, aka angle off) isn't a big deal because you can just check and extend to a lag pursuit. Practice maintaining full pitch deflection at 330 with a really deep slice but be careful not to let the nose get too low, it takes a lot of energy and time to get back up. A split-s is a good maneuver for the Viper at 330 (minimum turn radius). Have a nice check and extend before you come out of it. You will notice the Viper is very powerful 5-20 degrees below the horizon but most angle fighters like to climb in an oblique maneuver (climbing turn). Don't follow them into this as you will eventually lose. It is best to allow a vertical separation. A quick check and extend can get you over 500 knots fast while they're still at corner speed and you can do a hi yo-yo or even an over the top to get back on them, with energy. This might surprise them because they think they're beating you due to the expanding vertical distance and your check and extends are gaining them angles. If they're inexperienced they are probably getting too slow because it looks to them like they're beating you and they get excited and start pulling too many Gs. For an IR fight you do want to get into a 1 circle (I prefer the term nose to nose) but get out of the flat scissors asap by converting it to a rolling scissors. The airplane at the top is going slowest and the airplane at the bottom is going fastest and you want to get behind them. I'll let you figure that one out but don't forget about check and extend. If the target gets an angle on you pop flares and disengage the afterburner even before they Fox2 you. Hopefully you are going well over 400+ knots at that point. I think this covers all the Viper's most obvious strengths and weaknesses that I've noticed. Obviously do the don'ts if you have energy on the target but you might be surprised at how much doing the don'ts will ruin your energy management. I didn't really talk about aspect angle but you should be able to work it out with the info I've given. BTW, turn circle is the geometry of an aircraft's sustained turn and turning room is the ability to turn into their turn circle (get behind them).

He's having problems keeping up with F-4s though. Even if OP maybe meant F-5s, it seems wrong (does the Aggressors Campaign have F-4s?). If you're so high that the F-15 is struggling to maintain 450 knots at MAX then the F-4 would be struggling to even maneuver at that altitude. And at the altitude that MAX = 450 IAS the TAS would be something like 750. I checked last night for a throttle detent toggle that would prevent the afterburner from engaging like the Viper and Hornet but currently the Eagle doesn't have that. Seems like there is something we're missing. The Eagle is super good and is the most forgiving of mistakes.

Hm are you sure? Because you should be able to leave 450kts in the dust with the afterburner. The afterburner has 5 stages, so you should be able to hear them individually if you are at military power (96%) and slowly increase the throttle to max. You will be able to hear THUMP-THUMP-THUMP-THUMP-THUMP as they engage. There should also be the swooshing sound of the afterburner you can hear in the cockpit, even if you have the setting "hear like with helmet" on. 450kts in F-15 is really wrong and really it is one of the best aircraft in DCS at employing Medium Range Missiles, IR missiles or guns.

Interesting note: a high alpha pass (AoA about 20) in a clean F-16 takes more power than a high speed pass (mach .86).

The 120 takes a different wing pylon with a larger drag index but probably still %'s on %'s.

Yes, same for me. I tried using the slider axis on my X52 Pro but I just couldn't get the hang of using an axis when I'm focusing on aim, nor could I perceive any value added. I keep it off for anything but bombers.

I used military power the whole time except when going around the top of the hammerhead. I wouldn't do that if I were doing a real airshow because that is insane, and it also feels like to get value out of military power you have to be unmaneuvering above 300mph (as weird as that sounds). When I post a more polished attempt at an airshow I'll have figured out a way to manage the engine in a reasonable way for people to imitate and not blow their engine. But of course I would never fly a virtual airshow and not bust out WEP. Even if all I get out of it is to say "WAR EMERGENCY POWER!" But the point of my post is to reply to the question of "What maneuvers will kill a P-51 engine?" And the answer I demonstrated is that you can do all the standard P-51 maneuvers at military power and not blow your engine, AND you can do the hammerhead (that I've never seen an actual P-51 do) as long as you decrease your MPs for a few seconds as you're going over the top. My argument on 3000 RPM is kind of on the philosophy of the engineering of a warbird, and specifically the Mustang. From this chart: Maximum cruise is for operating with the most amount of time between having to rebuild the engine. All the green lines in the Mustang are for maximum cruise. It is normal to be above the green even in maximum continuous because being above the green represents the decrease in the amount of time between engine rebuilds, not that you're going to blow your engine. In war the warbird must get to the fight, and the Mustang is known for having extreme range for a fighter. This engineering trait is represented by this chart: (Those different columns you see are for operating the engine to fly greater ranges). The engine operates from 2700 RPMs and 46 inches at max continuous all the way down to 1500 RPMs at 30 inches. Engineers designed the engine with these needs in mind and the engine settings in the manual here represent that design. Engineers ALSO designed the Mustang to fight a WAR, so there is the setting of 3000 RPM and 61 inches. There is also the EXTRA CRAZY setting of War EMERGENCY Power, which I imagine the engineers had to spend a lot of time considering how to make the engine work with those settings. So warriors need their aircraft to get them to the fight (1500-2700 RPMs) and then they have to FIGHT the fight (3000 RPMs). Why would engineers spend any time thinking about RPMs between 2700 and 3000 and MP between 46 inches and full throttle? My argument is that the Mustang is engineered for fighting at 3000 RPMs and Full Throttle AND that the engineers had experience making engines of war that operated at 3000 RPMs. I don't think the main limitation was from blowing an engine but instead from the fact that if everyone in your squadron is using military power and WEP all the time then you are going to be spending a lot of time rebuilding engines rather than fighting the war. This is also probably why modern pilots fly their Mustangs at or below maximum continuous; they don't have a crew of mechanics rebuilding their engine between airshows. The main limitation of the engine in my mind is speed, not RPMs. As long as you're going fast you're "fine." (although obviously there are many caveats)

Hm well the Mustang was designed with 3000 RPM being the maximum and this had been an established limit for warbirds for many years. A prop rotating much more than 3000 RPMs starts to disrupt the air too much and there come to be diminishing returns. If only there was a way to compress the air before it gets to the prop, then the prop could spin as fast as metallurgy will allow... The manual only gives guidance on RPMs and MP when they are LESS THAN 2700 and 46in. Above that and it says 3000 RPMs and 61 inches; and 3000 RPMs and WEP (68 or 72 inches or whatever). There isn't a reason to go above the maximum continuous setting except for combat and I'm sure the warbird was designed with these settings in mind. In other words, I don't think you should use less than 3000 RPMs when greater than 46 inches MP. If you do, keep in mind what the engine is doing is blasting 61 inches of pressure inundated with atomized fuel into the carburetor and it is the prop being pitched against the air that is causing the RPMs to slow down. That just sounds like a thing that would make an engine run hotter than if you just let it go at 3000 RPMs like it was designed. Of course any one of us could jump into the sim and check to see what speeds and heats you get at weird RPM/MP ratios. I found a P-51 airshow done by Bob Hoover and then I promptly imitated it. All his maneuvers looked to be done at 300+ mph. He is usually diving down to the field right before the maneuver so I suspect he is doing repositioning maneuvers at lower engine settings to cool the engine off in-between maneuvers OR he is just flying at maximum continuous and gaining speed by diving to the showline. There is a cameraman in the jump seat behind him with sound. I'm not sure how accurate the sound is or if it is properly synced but it sounds like he's adjusting the throttle throughout some of the maneuvers. I did the airshow at MAX RPM and FT the whole time. Hoover didn't do a hammerhead, but I threw one in and that's when I blew the engine. I found that all I had to do was drop the MP to 30 inches when the speed gets below 170 mph and I keep it there until the temperatures get out of the red. (Throttle down half way up and throttle back up half way down is what that looks like.) I'm for sure going to practice this airshow but here is my attempt without blowing the engine: (Oh, don't laugh at my 16 point hesitation roll! I should have tried the 8 point one first, LOL!) Bob Hoover's airshow:

I would think you should keep RPMs at max and vary the manifold pressure. It is far more likely that the engine is overheating because the RPMs are set TOO LOW. If you fly at 2700 RPMs then you're going to need to never let the Manifold Pressure exceed 46 inches (that's the maximum continuous setting). If you really want to vary the RPMs then you're going to have to study all those flight operation instruction charts in the back of the manual. They'll give you safe RPM/MP ratios. If you go against the manual and set RPMs too low for your Manifold Pressure then the Mustang will auto adjust the prop speed by turning the prop blades flat against the air until they make enough friction to slow the engine down to the set RPMs. Doing this to the engine produces a lot of excess mechanical stress and friction (heat). This is called something but I'm not an aeronautical engineer so I forget. If you have 3000 RPMs but low MP, then the prop is spinning fast but the blades aren't turned into the air creating as much friction (or power). So really very little stress being placed on the engine and it's designed to operate at 3000 RPMs anyway, so it isn't a big deal. But when you have max MP + RPMs LESS than what the engine is designed for, that's gonna break stuff. Probably the nature of the problem is going too slow for too long. Maybe you could design the airshow to have high speed maneuvers between the slow moving ones.

Ok I have to take back my complaints on the effectiveness of the .50 in DCS. I hadn't done anything in the Mustang since the F-16 came out and apparently the AG ammo mix is amazing. I jumped into a custom mission with unarmored targets and with no practice in years I managed to ruin everything in basically 1 pass. It didn't used to be that way lol. Also I've always thought that train durability in DCS seems to be accurate to the footage. FALSE. You can look on YouTube of all gun camera footage from a single sortie. You can watch the same target get attacked by different pilots in the same squadron. And then watch all the gun camera footage from the same squadron's sortie from the next day. This creates a totally valid data set for analysis. FALSE. Watching all the footage from every pilot in a squadron for a single sortie reveals that all unarmored ground targets get totally destroyed in a fraction of a second. Even train cars tend to break easily. The guys that had not achieved the rank of Captain yet were kinda not so good at the aim, but even when they just rake a target for a fraction of a second it is destroyed. A SEAL with 10 rounds in his Barrett can end a power station (for example) and 1 second from 6 M2s is 80 rounds. So 1 second of fire at convergence is basically the end of whatever you're shooting at. Also I noticed all the unarmored ground targets are suspiciously static. It was well known to the Germans how effective the .50 was and they surly bailed as soon as they came under air attack. I've seen previously a ground car getting shot at and the guys bailing as it was happening but I couldn't find it today (maybe taken off YouTube because it was pretty hardcore). You know what I've never seen? A ground attack with .50 vs a tank. I don't think it was ever done. Unless the crew is laid out on the turret working on their tan I don't think .50 would do anything. I've seen training films that suggest shooting in front of a tank will put the bullets up into the floor of the tank, but I've never seen this done and I'm really skeptical that it could work. Bullets that impact a plane follow the plane, they don't reflect off it, unless the plane is really soft (like dirt) in which case almost all the energy from the round is absorbed by the ground. But if anyone has any gun camera footage of this or info on how effective it was I'd love to see it. But like I said earlier, I'm withdrawing my complaint about how the .50 is modeled in DCS because it seems much more accurately modeled now.

The Blackshark Ka-50 is another legacy module with what appears to be yet another versioning/marketing scheme. The original Blackshark isn't compatible with DCS. Blackshark 2 came out right around the time the A-10C and DCS were released. Now ED is working on the Blackshark 3, which is reported to be upgradable to Blackshark 2 users at a discount. Blacksharks 1, 2 and 3 are just improved iterations of the same model of Ka-50. The A-10A was from the previous game Flaming Cliffs and predated DCS but was legacy'd in, unlike the Blackshark, even though DCS literally launched as an A-10C simulator. I assume this is because the A-10A was a different model and it makes sense to have A-10As and A-10Cs in the same simulator. But it doesn't make sense to have Blackshark 1 Ka-50 and the Blackshark 2 Ka-50 because they're just improved code/graphics of the same aircraft. However, ED says the Blackshark 2 will remain compatible with DCS even as they release the Blackshark 3. Probably because the Blackshark 3 was meant to be more like the A-10CII upgrade with extra systems, but The Russian Federation recently changed her laws such that adding more systems to the Blackshark 3 isn't possible. So the Blackshark actually DOES follow the same versioning/marketing scheme as the Warthog. The A-10A and Blackshark 1 both predate DCS. The A-10A is a different aircraft than the A-10C but Blackshark 1 is the same aircraft as the Blackshark 2, so the A-10A gets legacy'd into DCS but the Blackshark 1 didn't. ED developed the A-10CII because it has more systems than the A-10C. Similarly, ED probably started Blackshark 3 because it was going to have more systems than Blackshark 2 but they had to change their plans after the law changed. Now the Blackshark 3 is going to be mostly an aesthetic upgrade. I do NOT think the Blackshark 3 versioning/marketing model is ideal, and I don't think ED intend for it to be merely aesthetic. It is NOT a good path forward for ED and it is not a good path for their consumers. I think a versioning/marketing scheme based on different models of the same aircraft is far superior and I hope that is the model they continue to pursue, as best as possible, as the law allows.

The engine cooling really needs updated. I feel like it's been on the horizon for 2 years. I just want to be able to use WEP a reasonable amount without throwing the dice and getting a blown engine. At the very least engine damage needs to feel more consistent (predictable) to the user. Thanks for the link to the excellent thread on the Meredith effect, it's far more informative than when I search in google or duckduckgo. I do this every couple years because the Meredith Effect mythos makes me laugh (there should be hard data all over the place after 70 years and I can never find it). I don't know how to see aftercooler temps in DCS nor do I know where irl aftercooler temperature data is available. But if DCS gets smaller ranges in oil temps than irl I would guess aftercooler temp ranges are similarly diminished. Probably after the engine cooling update the Meredith effect will be modeled in such a way that it is more easily critiqued. Simulating ammo technology is really important. Gun cameras depict .50 as being far more powerful than in DCS. Maybe those are just the best looking gun camera reels from the era but the .50 cal in DCS doesn't seem to stack up to historical accounts.