Stratozombie

I was actually impressed with what seems like the accuracy of the flight model in this area. The F-5 should be hard to trim in cruise if it's like the T-38. It's hard to trim because the airplane has minimum stick force per G at .9 Mach, and the slightest movement of the stick gives you more climb or descent than you want when trying to make smooth adjustments to level flight. Smallest movement of the trim button can give you more movement than needed to trim off the very slight amount of stick force that you can hardly even feel. It's a sweet plane to maneuver but takes constant attention in high altitude cruise. Long flights make you dream of a simple altitude and bank hold autopilot.

In the real plane the fingerlifts are to allow movement from idle to off. To go from MIL to AB range you just push through a roller detent type gate. You can feel some resistance but nothing to see or do but push.

I don't have any F-5 time, I just have lots of T-38 time. But from my reading of the F-5E Dash One, I believe it is exactly the same system. The rear cockpit switch (F-5F also) is spring loaded to OFF (center) and overrides the front cockpit switch. I recall the front cockpit switch would remain in the OFF or IN position as set by the pilot, but I'm not sure if the OUT position was momentary or would remain in OUT. I did most of my flying from the rear cockpit, but I think it would remain in OUT. I recall with the front switch to OUT the brake remained solidly all the way out, while with the switch OFF in either cockpit they could tend to slowly bleed in over time. On a fingertip formation descent the wingman would sometimes need to drag partial speed brake if lead stayed clean and was too close to idle power, and if it was a long descent you would have to crack the switch from OFF to OUT occasionally. As you said, the unpowered position of the control valve is the real question here. I recall it as being spring loaded to CLOSE (valve open), so that with an electrical failure the speed brake would automatically retract to a fail safe position. You don't want it stuck out when you might have to do a go-around or are down to one engine.

Thanks much for the reply. I have done all that except opening the radiator manually, so I will try it.

Apologies, I misunderstood your post.

But you are stating that the fluid is trapped, and I don't see how it is. I don't think the brakes are held up by trapped pressure behind a closed valve. In the closed position the valve is actually open, and is routing utility system pressure to the close side of the actuator. When that system pressure goes to zero there is no pressure trapped in the actuator because the valve remains open. I seem to recall that losing the utility system in flight could cause speed brake droop, but I am getting along in years now. But consider that if pressure remains trapped against the close side of the actuator when you move the switch to extend, how would the system pressure move the actuator against that trapped incompressible fluid? I can't see how one side or another of the actuator is closed off, unless the SB switch is in the off (centered) position.

I know there are limits to up and down stabilizer travel, but I wondered if the stick itself would still reach the full nose up limit if it were mis-trimmed to full nose down trim. Do the hydraulic inputs move along with the feel and centering unit or do they remain fixed. I think they must remain fixed or the stab would not trim with movement of the feel/centering unit. The reported cause of a T-38 crash back in the mid 80's was that during a dive recovery either the student or the instructor had grabbed the stick in such as way to inadvertently run the trim all the way forward, causing the instructor to believe they had insufficient elevator control to recover from the dive, and they ejected at high speed. The investigation did determine that even with the mis-trim the aircraft was recoverable with higher than normal stick force, but I don't recall if it stated that stab travel to the limit was still available. (The instructor strongly disagreed with the findings, but of course the mishap ruined his reputation.)

With the speed brake switch in the open or closed position the valve allows system pressure to reach the open or close side (respectively) of the actuator. If system pressure is lost in flight with the speed brake open it will blow toward closed, but may not completely close. When pressure goes to zero after engine shutdown I don't see why they would not eventually droop. With the switch in the center (off) position the valve is closed and isolates both sides of the actuator, and the speed brake should in theory hold whatever pressure is on the actuator and remain at the angle set. In reality after some time pressure could tend to bleed off, and if you had cracked the brake open to an intermediate position it could slowly creep toward closed due to air load, and you would occasionally have to give it another press aft to get the brake where you wanted it.

I'm not so sure that full aft stabilator trim doesn't give you more slab movement. The trim moves the slab, not a trim tab. That said, this flight model (accurate or not) is so nose heavy on landing that it does seem pointless to aerobrake for a short bit and then have the nose fall uncontrollably

I don't think it's atmospheric pressure, I think it's geometry. The bomb has a lot more time to travel down range from 11,000' than it does from 500', even at the same TAS, let alone faster.

Yeah, I wouldn't even think of it as a crosswind turn which is terminology for an instrument or heavy jet pattern. In fast jets it's a pull up to inside downwind, just as the turn to final is also a continuous final turn" rather than a "base leg". You are within flight manual procedure to drop the gear as soon as you roll out on downwind. In real world it helps more planes fit in to the pattern and saves some fuel if you all conform to certain norms. It also gets you into a groove where your muscle memory helps you fly consistently. That said you sometimes have to adjust those norms to make it work. For example if you pulled up or pitched out too close to someone already on downwind, you might want to slow as much as possible so you don't crowd him at the perch and have to extend your own rolloff, which it turn screws the plane behind you. I know these considerations don't usually matter in DCS--except perhaps during a Red Flag recovery--but to me they are part of the art and expertise. Flying faster always makes the jet feel better and more stable, so it's natural when starting out in the jet. In real world being a little fast around the final turn doesn't hurt because you can just pull a little more G --as long as you can still slow to on-speed for final. Planning to fly significantly fast will make your pattern too wide and cause problems for other jets in the pattern (and you will get a bad rep and have to buy beer at the bar for the guys that will still hang with you). Flying too fast on final will get you a downgrade on the landing grade, because on-speed is not a suggested technique, it is the performance standard. Obviously not a real factor in DCS, but I mention it because I can see you care about your flying. On speed is tough in DCS. I think perhaps the flight model falls off a cliff a bit too abruptly when you get to the green donut, so you have to have the power on before you get there. Yeah, the aiming short and flaring over the overrun is not for the faint of heart or would-be airliner-only pilots, but it's what it takes to land a T-38 close to the threshold, necessary in a jet with a high landing speed and no antiskid or drag chute. You also have to be willing to flare the piss out of the jet. The ideal in my day (not always achieved) was to be in the heavy tickle (or even light buffet) with the nose in a aerobrake as the tires rolled onto the runway 500' down. When you get it perfect you get a little rush as a reward. The slower speed plus drag chute on the F-5 means you can easily get away with very hot/long touchdowns in DCS, but I'd bet that in real world they saved the chute for heavyweight returns or diverts to short runways, rather than for normal lightweight landings at home base. Anyway, it's nice to see somebody who cares about proper flying, so keep up the good work!

Smoothly done all around! Comments from an old fart: -It would be easier to evaluate with the info bar at the bottom of the screen. -I would guess most operators specify 250 knots minimum before pulling closed, which makes the pull more comfortable and expeditious. -Some guys like to pull up first and then roll, but I think that's just about stylin' and I prefer the traditional roll and then slice-up pull. Either way you are only climbing 1500 feet, so you are climbing less than you are turning. -You can drop the gear as soon as you roll out if speed allows. This will silence the horn but waste a little fuel dragging it to the perch. Gear abeam the touchdown zone is often the expectation, but do what you need in order to have speed where you want it at the perch. -Final turn speed was a little high, which is safe and gives you more latitude, but also gives you more speed to bleed off as you transition to final. You didn't seem to have a problem with the transition at all, but that was eased by the fact that your final approach bug was set a little fast (giving you a slightly fast AOA indication on final). -Nice smooth landing, if a little long. You were using an airliner aim point and faster than flight manual computed speed. Aim point on final should be the runway threshold until you get close. Then (when you can't stand it) shift aim point toward touchdown zone and begin flaring when necessary. The goal is to touch down no longer than 500' down at about 12 deg nose high. To do that in calm wind takes an aggressive power reduction and a bit of faith. In a headwind it is more comfortable because you can hold the power longer. Also, a 3 degree glidepath is within specs and is easier on visibility and the fear of dragging it into the overrun. The old T-38 method was initial aim point 500' short of the threshold (middle of a standard overrun) and a 3.5 degree glidepath, but I think they now teach threshold and shallower as having more transference to other aircraft types. -You are well on your way, and if you can hit all the marks consistently you will find it very rewarding.

I would like to second the motion for updating the flight model with better modeling of buffet. In this airplane you should be able to discern the difference between the tickle, light buffet, moderate buffet, and heavy buffet. It would help immensely.

nope

P-51 Engine Quits I've twice tried to fly my first campaign mission in the P-51 but I can't get more than halfway across the Channel before my engine seizes. I'm not running it out of fuel -- it is on a full tank and it stops with a bang and does not windmill. Clear weather, trying to climb between 170-200 mph. I was running at max continuous 2700rpm/45inches trying unsuccessfully to keep up with the lead 4-ship and I noticed the coolant and oil temps getting high. I thought this was lame, but I pulled it back to max cruise power top of the green rpm/mp and the temps normalized. These temps stayed good, but after a while I noticed the carb air temp was below the green (in ram air, supercharger auto) just before it went bang on me. Altitude was fairly high at this point so the air was cold but I never went through a cloud. Can anyone tell me what I'm missing? Thanks.

My point is that blackout and GLOC are different, and blackout doesn't necessarily lead to GLOC. In days past I had low blood pressure and a somewhat low resting G-tolerance so I had to work at my anti-G maneuver. I grayed out occasionally but had it under control, but once I did black out completely while continuing to fly the aircraft through a max G pull up from an unplanned nose buried to nose high recovery. I was completely blacked out through the pull and completed it by feel. Once I let off the G I was instantly back to full bright. I have never GLOCed because I never let anyone snatch the G in rapidly enough to blunder past my blackout limit. In DCS once you go black you are out, and that is not a true representation of pulling into black smoothly.

I haven't seen anyone explicitly point that DCS does not distinguish between blackout and GLOC. You can be completely blacked out for some time and remain conscious, and all you need to do is relax G and your vison will return (BTDT). If you black out in DCS you are immediately unconscious, and for an extended period, despite the fact that the unconscious pilot would have automatically relaxed the excessive backpressure. The immediate and extended lapse of consciousness is unrealistic and must be fixed. I'm new to DCS and this forum -- how do we influence the developers?

Military Rated Thrust (MRT) or Mil Power is the most power the engine will produce without AB and is usually allowed for 30 minutes. At any RPM/TIT/EPR setting beyond the Max Continuous or Normal thrust limits, the Mil power limits apply. In a fast jet Mil thrust occurs at the mil power detent. Beyond that detent is the afterburner range, starting at min AB just over the mil detent to max AB at the forward stop. Older jets used to move the throttle outboard to select burner, but in most modern jets AB is past the mil detent.

I'm having the same problem as well. Mission fail because bombers do not bomb their targets but just circle around or go home. Played it 6 times with same result. Is there a solution?