Katj

Just experiment with different values until you find what suits you and your gear. I think I run about 15 on my crosswinds. I do not agree that you need constant precision for the rudder. Precision is way more useful near the center.

Mathematically speaking it's the meteorologists, aviation people and general public that's got it wrong. So from an engineering perspective it makes perfect sense the way it is in the ME.

I have zero insight into the inner workings of the DCS flightmodels and the API so I really can't say. I'm not the sort of person who is afraid to make a guess though: Considering the amount of trouble 3rd party developers and ED are having with more simple aspects of external stores, like weight and drag, it wouldn't surprise me if the API is making these things difficult. It probably wasn't designed for this level of fidelity from the beginning. So at the end of the day I'm guessing that it's possible but inconvenient, perhaps prohibitively so.

I wouldn't base my understanding of mechanics on the dcs F-14. Nevertheless, it is basically the same, with only a 3 knot difference. The only way this could happen is if the stores have a negative effect on lift. Drag should have the opposite effect as mentioned earlier. It isn't very far fetched to think that stores in the tunnel might have a detrimental effect on lift on the F-14, but I'm not convinced that this is modeled. I think it's more that the weight showing in the ME doesn't match whatever weight the flight model uses. Or maybe it's the trim I mentioned before, who knows at this point.

Lets stick to horizontal flight for now. In this case drag is in the opposite direction of the aircraft velocity, i.e. also horizontal. Whatever that horizontal component of the lift vector is in your picture, you can just move it from the lift to the drag vector and we have a nice vertical lift vector. Now, this just leaves thrust, which has to be large enough to counter the drag. But at 15 units of AOA it also has a significant vertical component, i.e. the more you increase drag the more lift you will get from thrust. Exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

Why is that? If the aircraft is the same weight (internal fuel was adjusted to achieve this) the wings will have to generate approximately the same amount of lift, i.e. on-speed will be the almost the same. Why do I write almost and approximately? Because e.g. wing tanks will probably generate some lift themselves when flown at 15 units AOA. Also, trim changes at different loadout might have an effect.

My point is that with the F110 engines there seems to be little reason for the spoilers to deploy halfway when you activate the DLC. Even if they would have stayed in you could still have extended them with the thumbwheel to kill lift. You'd lose the ability to increase lift, though. Though I'm sure they considered this and decided not to do it for some reason. Of course it was still possible to retract the spoilers manually, but I'm guessing that sort of hack didn't do you any good in terms of max trap weight.

It has occurred to me that the extension of DLC (also in its "neutral" position) kills lift and thus increases approach speed. This should lower theoretical max trap weight accordingly. Now, this may have been deemed necessary with the tf30 engines, but didn't it unnecessarily limit the max trap weight on the F110 equipped jets?

How odd that they designed it with an ultimate load factor of 13 g, maneuver flaps and slats, internal gun, and all the other features of a fighter.

I agree completely. So let's get back to the zero drama discussion! Yes, they are, and I very much appreciate seeing the progress that's being made on the performance side of the flight model. There's obviously good work being done on several aspects of the FM. Unfortunately I can't really claim to have noticed that Heatblur is being very transparent on their methodology, though. There might be valid reasons for this, or maybe I just missed it. Anyway, all I've heard is "we have better methods of testing". Fat Creason promised us test data down the line, so I'm looking forward to that.

What's with all the ad hominem coming from you? It's unbecoming, too. If you're going to hold people to such high standards with regards to the scientific method then please elevate yourself to that level as well.

I must have been unclear. I've had the 5600x and the 3080 for a year now. The Ti wasn't a thing then. Anyway, you're right, I don't regret it.

Hey Victory, speaking of tuned engines, did you ever fly this jet? https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/post-3882876 I say P7 engine option or riot! [emoji6]

I ran into some instability at a fabric clock of 1900 MHz. 1800 MHz is no problem, and I think most 5000-series CPUs can manage this. Now I haven't even tried pushing the limits with the later BIOS versions that apparently are more stable. I might do that one of there days. I went with a 5600x and 32 GB B-die ram, as I judged this to be the most bang for the buck. I don't think a 5900x will future proof a build much. I fully expect to buy a new mid-range cpu and some ddr5 ram, a high-end GPU, and a new motherboard in a couple of years. If I still want a top notch VR experience that is.

Keep the speed up pull and hard and out of plane (I.e. perpendicular to the direction of the AA fire). That's the best you can do, but eventually they will get you. Because as the headline of this thread suggests they are currently OP.

Yeah, constant weaving is key. The only thing you've got to work with is the flight time of the shell, and considering the high velocity of those 88s and their impressive splash radius you really need to work it. Makes it hard to line up for a strafing run.

I just got into dca wwii a few days ago when I got the 109. I was surprised to say the least when I tried the airfield attack instant action mission. I can evade the flak for long enough to down both spitfires, but sooner or later they always get me. After maybe 15 attempts I've never been able to strafe an appreciable amount of parked aircraft. Doesn't seem realistic at all, but I enjoyed the challenge nonetheless.

Only the next one.

Why? It's all correct. First flight in 1967 and introduction in 1971. It very clearly states that this is for the AJ (Attack Jakt/attack fighter) variant. The JA (Jakt Attack/fighter attack) variant was introduced later. The primary mission is the first letter, the secondary mission the second letter, and so on. I.e. the AJS featured in DCS had a spaning/reconnaissance mission as well.

Well, realisticly, if you are in steady state flight and planning to go vertical without touching the throttles you're going to have a decent indicated airspeed and low AoA. Thus the lighter aircraft will "win".

Yes, this checks out and my previous statement was incorrect!

The whole point of having a wing is that it gives you more lift than drag. How could the heavier aircraft have a higher twr? The only way this could happen is if the heavier aircraft has a stalled wing.

Well, you overlooked both the parasitic drag and the fact that the drag will increase more for the heavier aircraft as they pull into the vertical, while thrust will (initially) remain the same.

It's not the topic of this thread, but she for sure feels a bit different.

Yes, and the DCS and real A seem to be in agreement. Which is very good! I think one, albeit very oversimplified, explanation is that it has a higher bypass ratio which in turn will feed the afterburner with more oxygen (and mass).