Ornithopter

How do you know, though, Lord?

This is really un-Hip.

The UH-60L would be a good fit too, because it would fit into both 1991 and 2003+ Iraq wars, or even a later. I'd rather have the L.

If you're so intent on learning what a "real pilot" knows, then why don't you take private piloting lessons, and earn your PPL? OK, everyone gets your point, the Yak-52 and other training aircraft in DCS aren't teaching you what you want to know. You've been given many opinions, but your views seem to be unchanged, and unmoved from your original post. What more does anyone need to say about it?

@dcn It seems you're looking for a flight simulator to spoon-feed you everything you need to know. No matter what plane you choose to learn on, just like in school, it helps to have a textbook, and you must do your homework. As pointed out by everyone here, there are all kinds of flying resources. For example, you might start with something like the Airplane Flying Handbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/1117 . That book alone probably has half a dozen pages just dedicated to turning an aircraft. It will explain basic manuevers, patterns, constant speed props, and many other useful things.

The F1M is my most anticipated plane in DCS, and all of flight simulation right now, just to put it out there.

Start with a FBW aircraft for the "Ab Initio" training, so you can master basic skills? OK, whatever works for an individual brain....

I would suggest your brand new to flight simming friend get the C-101 and the Flaming Cliffs 2024 module. If they want to learn the basics of flying, since they're so new, they can learn on the C-101. If they want to fly an F-15 or even an F-5 in easy mode, they can do that too. They can even do Brrrrt in the A-10A. And you would suggest they fly, what? The Thunderbolt II? A non-flight-simming buddy that has what kind of hardware? Is he going to buy a Thrustmaster Warthog right off the bat? As you say, "That would be sure to get a laugh." If they have a different level of experience on the other hand, like years of flight simming behind them, that's a different matter entirely.. The op suggested that he wanted to learn more real world piloting stuff. If all he wanted was a very complex video game, then I doubt he would have made this topic. Quit pointing out that there are no real world consequences to crashing in a flight sim. No kidding? Do you think we are all that stupid? I'm just saying it's a matter of whether you are actually as good at your video game as you think you are!

I'm going to guess that some of non real pilots in this thread started doing flight simulation with some version of MSFS flying Cessnas and learning how to do the very very basics, before DCS even existed. As with a musical intrument, most people benefit from playing scales before they play a Zeppelin song. Don't assume that everyone just jumped into some complex aircraft like you claim to, without having a significant amount of prior knowledge and skill. If you started with one of the most system-wise complex aircraft in DCS not "knowing what the flaps are for", that's great. Congratulations. There is something to be said about jumping into the deep end of the pool to learn to swim. But I'll bet there are a heck of a lot of things you don't know compared to virtual pilots who started with simpler airplanes, in simpler sims, and possibly decades before you. The original poster wanted to learn how to "fly" in a flight simulator, acquiring the basic skills comparable to what a real pilot might learn. His main problem seems to be that there is not enough tutorial material provided with the so-called training airplanes (of which he appears to only have the Yak-52). As you point out, there is an abundance of tutorial material on the internet or in books, so that's his problem--you get out of flight simulator what you put into it. Regardless of the tutorial quality of some of these airplanes, some posters in this thread are simply suggesting that easier training aircraft can be useful, starting with something simple and working your way up. For someone brand new, there is something to be said about a very stable airplane with little more than a stick, a rudder, a throttle, and a 6 pack of traditional gauges. As I said before, you've stated that you don't actually own any of the DCS trainer aircraft, so therefore you really don't have any idea what you didn't learn from them, or their provided tutorials.

Using BJ55's bomb table example from above, the release altitude is 1000 ft and horizontal release range is 2603 ft. You say "You should meet the planned profile at the moment of release though, so that your entered Drag Coefficient matches." What if the drag coefficient is more or less correct, but I'm 500 feet too high, or I'm not exactly perfectly level around the predicted time of release? Aren't I going to still miss the target by a long way? Are you saying that the WRCS is smart enough, without Radar or Laser ranging, to automatically adjust the Release Range based on my deviations from the originally planned profile, as long as I push and hold the bomb button at exactly the right moment? Additional question: What if my initial speed or altitude are off as I overly the IP and push the bomb button to start the sequence? Because the WRCS is doing things dynamically, that shouldn't matter, should it, as long as I am physically right over the IP? Or does it?

So SharpeXB is arguing that eveyone should just jump into planes such as the A-10C because that's how he did it, therefore planes like the Yak-52 (or even the jet trainers) have no purpose. I'll totally agree that there is a wealth of training materials out there in the world. But you, DCN, are arguing that you need an airplane to teach you such things as the ability to "turn correctly". Whether the included tutorials are up to the task of not, isn't the Yak-52 the appropriate plane for you to be able to practice those basic skills?? If you're at that level of skill, wouldn't you want to learn to fly the simple stuff in a basic airplane? If you truly think the trainers are worthless, then sure, go jump straight in to one of the airplanes with the biggest learning curves in the game!!! On the positive side, a plane such as the A-10C is very "easy" to fly. But not as easy to work the nav systems or weapons systems. You might even be so sharp that you'll be rattling off Mavericks and working with Bullseyes and SPIs in no time,lol! But keep in mind, none of the tutorials for those more advanced aircraft will teach you basic airmanship, any better than the trainers. I truly think you will be a much better flight simulator pilot if you learn the basics of flight in a simpler aircraft. I'm talking simple stick and rudder stuff. If I was coming to flight sim brand new, I probably wouldn't have picked DCS as the very first one, but if that's all I had, and those training aircraft had existed back then in DCS, I would have definitely taken advantage of them. I'm glad they exist now, because it helps me even now to go back to the simple stuff, instead of being one of those HUD-zombies or capable of doing nothing more than following a magenta line. It's amazing how bad one's skills can slip when you're never doing any more than just putting a velocity vector on a virtual horizon line on the HUD.

So you're saying that you don't even lift, bro? Full disclosure: I only have the C-101, but that's enough for me to weigh in on this discussion, isn't it? But how could you possibly be so vehement in your opinion about the value of these kinds of aircraft, if you don't even have any of them? If Aviodev ever gets the Sea Eagle cruise missile in order, I'll bet I could penetrate a wall of Zeroes, get in to the Japanese fleet, and sink the Shokaku with the C-101. You keep pointing out over and over that it's just a video game, so why such lack of imagination and rigid thinking when you ponitificate about the worth of such an airplane, and how others should value it?

I think most people would agree with this, generally, although a step ladder approach to learning would be preferable to many. Re-reading the original post, he is primarily talking about the Yak-52, which has no weapons, therefore he questions it's usefullness and playability. That's a personal choice (many enjoy flying a GA airplane in MSFS, where there is no combat at all). Since Combat is DCS' middle name, it's understandable that one might not be interested in non-combat aircraft. But let's keep in mind that the MB-339, C-101, the L-39, and even the Mirage F1BE, are also fully combat capable. There are all kinds of combat scenarios that these aircraft can fit into. You can strafe trucks, drop bombs the old-fashioned way, and you can dogfight with guns or IR missiles. If playing online, an optional human player in the back seat obvoiusly doesn't have to be an instructor of any kind; They can act as WSO, Navigator, a FAC, or just a buddy along for the ride to chit chat. It's really all up to the imagination.

If I was starting flight simulation as a complete newbie, and was brand new to full fidelity DCS planes, I think I might look very seriously at a trainer aircraft as my very first module. Maybe people who consider themselves experienced in DCS, or are real pilots, forget that there are basic things to be learned. The people in this thread alreadt know how to fly patterns, do radio navigation, fly at night, instrument approach, drop a bomb, etc, but if you were completely new to it, it would likely be easier to start with something simpler than a Tomcat or a Phantom. Even the F-5 could be overwhelming to someone compIetely new. I imagine there are people that don't even know what the flaps are for! I didn't say a trainer aircraft is "necessary" for a video game, but traditionally one starts with arithmetic before algebra, don't they? There is certainly nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with someone sending themselves through a simulated "real" training pipeline with the appropriate level of complexity at each stage, stepping up to more complexity in increments, instead of just being overwhelmed.

I picked up the C-101 during a sale, even though I was somewhat ambivalent about it, and was just looking for variety. I eventually went through most of the training missions for it. Although I wouldn't argue it's needed as a pre-requisite to other planes, for all the reasons mentioned, I think it did improve my DCS flying. More importantly I just think it's a really good airplane for it's own sake, and I have fun with it. It's perfect for when I feel like flying something relatively simple, or want to just explore a scenery. I'm glad there are airplanes like this in DCS.

Aquorys, By the extaordinarily in-depth, and passionate description of your dogfight, sounds like it must be the most immersive air combat simulation you've ever experienced, and you really love it! You aren't "underwhelmed", you're addicted to it. Or else, you're just being snarky.

I'm a fan of Final Countdown type scenarios and DCS really is a Sandbox sim. I can't wait to take on the entire Kido Butai in my F-4E. I'll bet I can protect Task Force 58 during the Great Turkey Shoot in my lone Hornet, all by myself! Good to see this series branching out into this theater a bit more.

I guess that depends on the actual amount for what you're getting. Price of a few pints of beer for a little bit more functionality? You bet. That would be okay with me! Regarding the topic at hand, I would pay a FF price for a FF Su-25a.

No wonder why I'm not hitting very much in TGT find! LoL, I thought Jester was actually firing the laser, at least some of the time. So even when dropping a dumb bomb in a "dive toss like delivery" it's mandatory for the pilot to use the "temp" Full Action trigger to fire the laser for ranging information. Thanks for clarifying.

I would be happy if the FC aircraft at least had the basic ability to tune a Comm or Nav radio and a couple of things related to weapons management. A plane might not be Full Fidelity, but I would be more enthusiastic about FC planes if they were better fidelity than what they currently are.

I have a related question regarding what actions Jester can be expected to take when in TGT Find. One way we have of doing it is pointing the nose/reticle at the target and then using the Jester Context action to get him to stabilize the pod on the target. The problem here is that Jester doesn't really do a good job of actually keeping the pod pointed at the specific target, only the general vicinity. This is problematic especially for LGB's. It's my understanding that Jester will actually fire the laser at the appropriate time (it's just that its not likely to pointed at the exact target!) The other way is to use the rear cockpit Antenna controller "temp" controls to physically control the pod from up front, as well as half action and full action. So...IF we do it this way to keep the pod pointed exactly at the target, will Jester still fire the laser, or do we, as the pilot, need to do it ourselves? Also, can we mix and match the two methods? If I'm the pilot, lets say I use the Jester Context action to roughly track the target, and then as I get within laser range, I refine where the pod is looking using my "temp" controls. Will Jester still fire the laser, or have I essentially taken over for him, and need to do it myself? (Related wish list item: Have Jester say "Laser On" or "Laser Off", so the pilot can know what's going on back there)

Thanks, that clears up my confusion. All along, I actually have been using the Bomb Table computer to get the Cd, and then having Jester enter it, and hence getting accurate drops (when I fly a pre-planned angle and speed) but then I came across these in the manual which confused me: "Depending on the selected mode, the WSO must setup the aircraft fo the desired attack profile. Only modes DT and TGT FIND generally require no preparation." pg 646 "It requires no specific setup or planning and can hence also be used for targets of opportunity." pg 649 In other places, such as when presenting diagrams from the real aircraft manuals, or in the weapons delivery checklists section, the manual does indeed, like you said, specify that a Cd must be entered by the WSO. Thanks for clarifying this. I do think it would be better if the manual were slightly more clear on this.

The manual implies that for a Dive Toss delivery, there is no requirement for the WSO to input a Cd. How is that? How would the WRCS know if I'm dropping a Mk-82, or a Volkswagen Beetle? Even if it computes the range correctly, wouldn't I need to tell the WRCS what I'm dropping, and at least a rough estimate of the delivery angle, speed, and drop altitude, so that this coefficient is accurate? I have the same question with TGT Find: If I'm doing "CCRP" from a either a level bombing profile, or a diving profile, wouldn't I need to input a Cd for it to know when to drop?

You've stated basically the same opinion about 10 times now, and you aren't going to leave it alone, are you? As Bignewy said, if you aren't interested in it, then don't buy it. Simple as that. At this point it seems you're just concern-trolling the issue.

I really doubt they would be doing an F-35 if they weren't aware of the challenges awaiting them. It isn't their first airplane.