Spurts

I am fine with not having full range of motion (and you are correct), I do it intentionally for that purpose. I go full forward trim before a dogfight to reduce my chance of overcontrolling in pitch. I did once, as a test, go full aft stick trim on the ground. Once airborne I was full forward stick cleaning up and kept pitching up. THAT problem is due, as you said, to not having full range of motion available but it is also not a realistic scenario. At 1.9M+ 36,000ft I can full forward trim but I still have to push forward to avoid climbing, so I am at a loss there. At low alt and 1.2M full forward trim I need to pull back a bit. What speeds and alts are you doing that you can trim? I guess in short I am saying that full aft trim is uncrontrollable with wings forward (can be controlled with manual sweep aft at low speed). Full forward trim has been insufficient to stabilize at top speed around 36,000ft.

I would just be happy to be able to manipulate the tape player physically in the cockpit.

oh #1 affects me plenty, I just changed how I do it to click and drag. I had a similar #2 incident where I assumed it was because it picked up my jamming strobe. missile turned like 30deg to pure pursuit and hit me in the face after the shooter broke lock.

Bingo.

90km is 49nm, vs an F-4. Seems much lower than other documentation. Older version of the -63?

Hello, I just wanted to highlight some observations I've made about trim. Full after trim results in incontrollable pitch-up at any speed (full stick forward with full aft trim results in pitch up to stall) and full forward trim still requires forward stick at high speed (~1.9IMN) to avoid climbing. Is this intentional? It seems like there would be benefit from moving the trim limits "forward" in both cases. These are far from game-breaking issues, I'm just curious if they are correct implementation.

I feel ya on this part. I loved the Flanker and Fulcrum when I was a kid. Got Flanker 2.5, then LO-MAC where I exclusively flew the Su-27 against my roommate in his F-15. I was always complaining that the FBW was not modeled. Then DCS World became a thing and I picked up the Su-27 again. Better FBW, but compared to the F-14/16/18 it might as well have still been LO-MAC modeling for systems. I still love the Flanker, but I would love a Su-30SM contemporary of the modern BluFor jets. Problem as I understand it is that Russia will not allow the systems documents to be released. Same reason the Mirage 2000 is not allows to be named Mirage. Same reason the F-14D will never happen.

L/D for the F-14 is up to 15.

"Ooooh, that three wire was as pretty as Meg Ryan."?

The MiG value is in the ballpark of what I would expect but it's not a value I have been able to verify. As to the pancake and "considerable percentage of the airframes total lift"... well... Here is a bit I wrote a few years back. View topic - Wing Loading: You keep using that term.... - Technology (f-16.net) That post was about total lift generation, not drag due to lift.

No worries @Digitalvole! Always happy to help.

Time for us to re-learn BFM edge cases!

Those are the values I have seen for the Su-27 and the F-15. As for why they are "too low"? Long straight wings are better at making lift (the whole reason for the swing wing) and the F-14 has full span leading and trailing edge high lift devices. Don't fall into the trap of "but muh pancake". Flanker and Fulcrum have it too, and they both have LERXs. F-15s inlets nod with AoA and act similar to Su-33 canards in managing the airflow over the broad, flat, lift making body. Does the Pancake make lift? YES! But the AoA where it becomes effective is as/after the wings stall.

You have to use the head command modes of Jester Lantirn. from 7:50 on

CL max for the F-14 is ~2.2. If you run the equation for induced drag it is Di=CDi*q*S. (q is dynamic pressure, 0.5*rho*V2) CDi=CL2/pi*e*AR (e is the Oswald's Efficiency Factor and measures how elliptical the lift distribution is across the span, we will largely ignore this for now) CL=n*W/q*S We will ignore stability impacts on n for the moment CDi=n2*W2/q2*S2*pi*e*AR AR=b2/S (b is Wingspan) CDi=n2*W2/q2*S*pi*e*b2 If we fold this back into induced drag and simplify we get Di=n2*W2/q*b2*pi*e Let's call n2/q*pi*e "K" as this will assume same G, Speed, Altitude, and Oswald's efficiency factor Di=K*W2/b2 So we can see that the driving force for drag due to lift is span loading, not wing loading. Stability plays an equal part but makes the computations much uglier. F-14A and B have slightly lower Span Loadings when loaded (4AIM-9s and 4-AIM-7s vs 4R-73s and 2R-27s) and at matching fuel fractions (20%). Assuming they have equal stability this pans out. Long straight wings tent to have better e than swept trapezoidal wings so the e value in the equation lends itself more to the F-14 advantage as well. In the end though this is about T/W ratios. Thrust drops ~15-20% on installation, increases with airspeed, and drops with altitude. Different engines perform differently at different regimes and in different airframes (inlet design and function matters). A J79-GE-10 installed in an F-4 makes more thrust at 2.0M and 35,000ft than an F110-GE-129 installed in an F-16 at the same flight condition. A higher T/W on paper does NOT mean better acceleration under a given regime in flight. You see this in cars too. I had a truck with 305hp, 380lb-ft of torque, a 5-speed transmission, a 3.55 rear axle, and weighed 5200lb. I had an SUV with 255hp, 330lb-ft of torque, a 4-speed transmission, a 3.42 rear axle, and weighed 6100lb. On paper it shouldn't even be close, but the SUV had better straight line performance across the board.

I'll test this as well

Now if only my Cougars thumb stick worked....

Like all the HARM mode videos teasing new clouds. And yeah, that ECM pod was the first thing I keyed to in the video.

Can a Hornet transfer a MP to a Viper via L16?

https://youtu.be/itXyzZ2-fTw This was fun

I fly solo, so yes one-man-air-force. I challenge myself with the ability to overcome CAP and SAMs to hit an asset, say an AWACS on the ground. As you said @Lace, to each their own. That is how I fly DCS. By myself and mostly "how could I overcome this threat" scenarios.

DEAD. Two HARMs for the emitters, CBUs for launchers and support vehicles, LGBs for cleanup of anything CBUs missed. This is my go to DEAD load in the Hornet.

Use case for more than 1 inner GBU: HARMs on 3/7, 2xCBU on 4, 2xGBU on 6. Has nothing to do with 12 GBUs.

Yeah, you're right. I'll give them a look. Edit: alas, the 104th only showed up with a Syria Map which I don't own.

I sympathize with this so much. I was gifted the Tomcat by a close friend who wanted a human RIO or an occasional wingman. In the end he had too little time to fly and found he did not like flying the Tomcat that much. He prefers the Hornet. Having spent time in the backseat I know what I want Jester to do, I can visualize the buttons, switches, and screens I want him to be working with. While I came to LOVE flying the Tomcat (it is my favorite gunfighting machine in the game) I long for a reliable multi-crew experience in it, and I became a better pilot than all my friends who have the module. Captain Dalan, you are one of the few sticks I have seen who I would feel comfortable driving the pointy end for me. If the stars aligned and our middle aged people with obligations schedules allowed I would RIO for you any time. Random people on MP servers, not so much.