nairb121

Back to the original topic - the following passage is from the -1 manual concerning handling characteristics with asymmetrical wing stores: It's interesting to note that the -1 actually only allows GBU-16 on the centerline pylon, not on the wings - presumably ED made the (reasonable) assumption that, since the inboard pylons were approved for Mk-83, the GBU-16 would also be usable. (Unless there's an additional source that I'm not aware of, which is very possible). I wonder if the issues you're observing are the reason the USAF -1 manual didn't allow them?

In high-level BFM, every degree counts... and at our current AOA limit (with guns loaded and balanced fuel), we can't even reach maximum lift, so our ITR and min radius are limited. Documentation suggests we should be able to reach roughly 28 (true) degrees AOA guns loaded... right now we're can't get past 21-22 without first lightening the nose of fuel or ammo, which can still only achieve about 26° with both empty. (Note that the in-cockpit AOA indicator does not show true degrees, but arbitrary units, typical of the time)

Yeah, it is a bit confusing. They're labeled by the engine they feed rather than their position. The layout looks like this: The odd shape and placement contribute to the different capacities of the left/right fuel systems.

There are not actually left/right internal tanks - there are no wing tanks, and the 3 fuselage tanks are in-line. Forward tank feeds the left engine; center and aft tanks feed the right engine. That said, draining the forward tank first can give you a little bit more AOA for those BFM engagements (as ours is incorrectly low at the moment)... procedure is as you described, right pump off and crossfeed on. Just keep a close eye on the fuel gauge if you don't want a double flameout.

The -1 manual only indicates Mk-82s as an acceptable loading on the MER, and M117 is only approved when carried singly, up to 5 total (one per pylon). That's not to say that other configurations were impossible or couldn't have been used by other operators, that's just what's in the USAF -1.

Saudi Arabian by the serial number.

It's not intended to be the hypothetical ultimate F-5E with all the possible factory options... Wags stated quite plainly that it is "the Swiss F-5E that were later operated as aggressors." Yes, it should also have the INS and digital radios, he acknowledged that as well – and if they can, they should definitely add them. But we have not been promised, and are not "owed" any more than what the Swiss used operationally. I'd love the extra capabilities too, but I'm not going to claim that we "should" have them.

I agree, the -34 has many images of how the radar should look, and at least updating the graphics, if not the inner workings, would go a long way towards improving its authenticity. As it stands now, the radar is far behind DCS's modeling standards.

I'm not sure I agree with some of the interpretations of what our F-5E is/isn't, or should/shouldn't be. Per Wags, it is a Swiss F-5E-3, of the type that would later be bought back by the USN. It is not an F-5N - this is a later stage of its life than it is intended to represent. The F-5N NATOPS is a valuable source for the systems that were retained after the USN's acquisition, but T.O. F-5E-1 is clearly ED's primary source for the F-5's system modeling. The 1984 version containing the F-5E-3 is the latest I've seen, but please correct me if there's a later revision. From the evidence I've seen, quad AIM-9 carriage is a plausible capability for the Swiss F-5E-3. It should also be equipped with INS and digital radios, as the aircraft it is intended to represent was. If the F-5N NATOPS is a usable source, then I believe the latter should be a possibility for the DCS F-5E. Quad sidewinders are up to ED - but employment would be pretty self-explanatory, so I doubt there would be much stopping them from adding them if they chose to. I am not aware of any -1 manual indicating Maverick carriage or AAR capability on an F-5E-3 similar to ours, but I would love to see one. While the baseline F-5E's fuel system was designed with AAR upgrades in mind - it is not a simple removable probe; there are still modifications to the airframe to add it, ones that "our" F-5E did not have. That's not to say I wouldn't like to have a more modular F-5E to better represent a wide variety of operators - it'd be great to have that option. But all F-5E's are not created equal, and we were never promised "one F-5E to rule them all."

It was once findable online, but that isn't necessarily an indication that it is unclassified/unlimited distribution, which it would need to be for ED to use it legally.

They have not acknowledged the NATOPS as a usable source - no one has yet produced a valid public source for it. If provided though, it would also be the needed documentation for the digital radios and INS.

I haven't had anything like that happen. If it's bound to the throttle device, maybe it's a hardware issue? Maybe you could check the Windows joystick configuration tool (or any other) and see if it's producing a ghost input when moving the throttle.

It sounds like there is a different problem here from what others are talking about - for most this issue was present at all times as continuous extremely poor performance, not just after flying a few minutes. My understanding is, that was the issue that was fixed - but if there's a separate performance problem that appears a few minutes into a flight, perhaps it's worthy of its own post?

Wags confirmed in the Discord that it is intended to be the Swiss F-5E, but they cannot currently implement INS or digital radios due to lack of documentation.

If you have a valid public source for this document can you also provide it in response to Nineline's comment here? I was not able to find one.

I included roll-entry g for completeness, but the poster above did exceed the symmetrical g-limit as well. Should it have caused catastrophic structural failure? Probably not - the overload is well within expected safety factor, before even considering the more likely failure modes; but "it broke when I only exceeded the limits a little" is not as compelling an argument as "it broke when I did everything by the book". The latest from ED on the topic seems to be that their opinion is that the lack of artificial feel is the primary contributor to over-g related incidents; they also do not consider TacView to be a sufficiently reliable source for this type of issue. I doubt that the issue will be fully acknowledged unless proof is provided in the form of a track, showing failure within g-limits, with smooth stick application. What's here already is enough proof for me - my point is that it'll probably take hard proof of a gross error to get this fully acknowledged.

It seems to be intermittent (at least for me), but is sometimes resolved by restarting DCS. Last time I played I had to restart DCS once to get the "normal" framerate for the F-5... the time before that took 5 restarts. Not a fan of rolling the dice every time I start DCS to try to get it playable.

I'm not saying that DCS's behavior is true to life, but it should be pointed out that this configuration is limited to 6.5 G symmetrical/ 5.2 G roll entry - a maneuver showing failure while within the prescribed limits might make a stronger argument that DCS's modeling is flawed.

I think the confusion results from what exactly the relevant passage means by "two-position" and "retract". Does "two-position" exclude an additional fully-retracted position? And does "retract" indicate full retraction if not qualified as "retract to the intermediate or taxi-light position"?

I also see this in the Remaster, though it's less noticeable in VR.

Is the 2006 F-5E/F/N NATOPS considered to be a public document? If it is, I assume your team would probably be aware of it already, but I wanted to confirm.

How long has it been since you've flown it, and in what configuration? It's quite nimble and responsive clean, especially at 400+ knots, but is easily burdened by stores due to its light weight. To my knowledge there hasn't been any flight model change, in the last few years at least. As far as I know, it's fairly accurate, except for a couple reported issues regarding wingtip stores and AOA capabilities.

From the top or bottom - the LEXs are the biggest giveaway, if there's an angle then it's an E or F, if it's straight it's an A or B. Small angle then it's an early E, sharper angle and it's an E with IHQ (like our E-3). A: Early E: IHQ E: From the sides - apart from the tank you mentioned - you can also generally tell by the size of the metallic portion at the engine nozzles. On an A it's typically much smaller, while on an E it extends well forward of the back of the rudder. A: E:

I have a suspicion that this ties into the AOA issue documented elsewhere. Since the F-5's L/D range is compressed into a smaller AOA range, less nose movement corresponds to a higher change in lift, causing a realistic pitch rate to create an unrealistic g-onset.