Yo-Yo

I would be very grateful if this excerpt is translated to English to understand better the point but as for the AVERAGE rocket speed I can see here I can say that the rocket in DCS has the exact AVERAGE speed your document stated - 250 m/s. Regarding 'it has no drop" - if you fire a shell at initial elevation of roughly 5 degrees at 380 m/s you have about 33 m/s of pure vertical speed. It's very easy to say how much time you will await for it dropping... The only thing I can see a bit different is that in DCS the lifetime is set to 3 seconds. I guess it was done to have better aiming. That's why it were two years...

Ну, например, потому что масло не поступает в регулятор.

Прежде чем критиковать моделирование двигателя, надо бы хоть определиться с тем, какую скорость показывает фиг 5... Уж путать приборную и истинную как-то недостойно для "критика"...

You mix PITCH and RPM. The curves you posted actually about PITCH. Fixed pitch. As the plane gains speed the propeller pitch INCREASES to keep the absorbing power constant. So, the prop efficiency stays near its maximum level. This is a result of correct prop design. For sure, lowering rpm, thus, pitch at the certain speed in some cases you can add for example, 0.5% to the efficiency (because the efficiency as any function changes very slightly near its extremum), but the amount of engine power losses will be way higher. Generally, in the only one case (high speed, high altitude, high Mach number) rpm reducing can increase efficiency a bit more, reducing tip losses at transsonic region. But there are a lot of adversing factors like MP reducing, thus, the FTH lowers, drag rises...

Sorry, missed this fact... too hot here +32C. Of course, you can set higher rpm preserving max allowed MP. By the way, there is another case you need to use manual pitch: high altitude cruising, you need to increase rpm to get enough MP.

I do not think it is an objective fact. The engine at 2600 rpm and the same MP gives you, roughly, 26/28 of its power or about 7% less. Prop efficiency changes are negligable, so can not overcome power loss. All directions for all warbirds stated, that MAX POWER, so max acceleration, max climb are achieved at maximal permitted rpm and boost.

It requires careful measuring.

Manual propeller pitch is not a magic wand - using prop rpm setting you let the prop governor to do absolutely same job you did manually, so any plane with automatic rpm control is absolutely equivalent to the plane with manual pitch control. The key factor is not pitch by itself but the rpm where engine power is in equilibrium with the power prop absorb at any certain pitch. For the most of engines maximal power for the certain MP is obtained at max rpm, so reducing rpm (does not matter using automatic rpm governor or directly increasing pitch) you just reduce engine power. Approximately, the power is proportional to the air mass flow, thus - rpm, so reducing rpm from 2700 to 2500 (as I checked carefully) you will have only 2.5% change in maximal speed, as it is proportional to (power)^(1/3). I can not imagine what amount of speed changes did you expect, though...

Это не "все же". Это все...

These interconnected controls, as AlphaOneSix mentioned, are gathered at the same N1 lever, so, the behavior you see is a result of this lever hard limits. As intented.

1200 rpm and zero boost??? At the start? It is the best direct way to veer left. Take a look: 1200 rpm and ZERO BOOST. It's absolutely overloaded prop giving too much whirled propwash.

TO assistant like auto-rudder do not maintain straight path but rather eliminate side accelerations requiring fast reaction. Anyway, they have limited authority and the player under some circumstances has to help applying, for example, steady and slow right rudder input at the start of takeoff run to correct the path. By the way, the authority of the rudder (and, thus, of TO assistant) depends on how fast you apply power and what MP it is. To start takeoff run in Spitfire you need to apply not more than 12 lb in 1-2-3 count. and it is the best way. Gradual power is great for the planes with the locked tailwheel and, especially, for steerable tailwheel.

We can add this reduced dispersion for the navy variants, yes. If some reliable sources exist for this new barrel we can take a look.

You just misinterpreted the definition from the articles. If you read the whole material you can find the direct statement what unit is used at the page 4: 1.4 mrad at one standard deviation according to "Notes from Hughes Missile Systems Company, Pomona, California, 23 October 1992." Returning to the manufacturer's data for aircraft gun and calculating standard deviation from D80% we get 2.2 mrad at one standard deviation, so the addition of restraint framework enhanced dispersion only by 50% that is far away from 2200%... One of the tests result the second article was based on is shown at the second picture in your post, and this pattern is in full accordance with the ~ 1 mil (at std deviation, as it was stated). The 50% difference between the manufacturers data and the test results for a single specimen can be explained for example that the manufacturer provides the worst or the most probable result for a several specimens in batch production.

Speaking about dispersion we must specify what measurement unit of dispersion is used: D100% D80% D50% R100% R80% R50% vertical/horisontal median or standard deviation. It's like a values - the same value but in different currencies (but fortunately the exchange rate is constant) So, stating about 1 mil "dispersion" what currency, sorry, unit did you mean?

Probably I understand your wishes...I can say that we implemented the new way of hinge moment handling for P-47 but only for ailerons. Mostly it was done to check the effect. Lateral channel, first of all, is less prone to PIO due to its transient function, and, additionally, the force model itself does not induce PIO, if the player's input is sane for the certain conditions. So, for the rudder and, especially , for pitch we have to wait a bit and make additional tests to approve this approach. As for me - Mi-24 has special device that limits pedals input velocity. And it is a very good helper to get PIO...

Adverse yaw is a matter of HIGH AOA and ailerons deflected at almost full angle - Do you see the last reason as you are already in steady turn? And, by the way, the turn itself can be not at high AoA. This effect is more or less pronounced at the start of banking, yes, as the ailerons are deflected, but in a turn no rudder input is required for certain planes.

If you mean clipping - it presents. Variable gear ratio - never.

F-5 is not the only plane that does not require rudder to coordinate turns. L-39, for example, does the same.

All planes in DCS are made regarding known rudder effectiveness data that is available from the test flight reports. If we have lack of this data for some planes we add CFD obtained data. Generally, in the real plane you need to apply significant force to deflect the rudder. Plain plastic pedals have nothing comparable to these forces, and there is no good solution for the problem except having a strong spring on the pedals. Small non-linearity could help a bit, but any "velocity limiting", "lagging", etc are not only useless but extremely harmhul causing PIO. Anyone who worked with feedback knows that additional pole or (that is much worse!) slew rate limiting is a real nightmare regarding stability.

Смотри свои джой и/или педали(твист). Если при отключении этих осей (физически или в конфиге) крена нет (а его нет), то дело в них.

Такое у пилота не бывает. Только у пассажира.

Ну вот, уже есть просветление...

Есть статьи по авиационной медицине и , в частности, о GLOS и GLOC, модель точно соотвтетствует.