Bremspropeller

+1 Including more AIM-9 options, four AIM-9 launchers and Maverick integration.

So I tried to start the F-5 on a roadbase the other day, only to find out there's no way to get starter air for this case on a FARP. Will this eventually be solved?

So that's what the song's about...

Agree. You know what would be even doperer, though? A Block 10 or 15 A and B.

Wakes are overly simplified and not really realistic. They make it harder, so most DCS players think it's got to be the real deal. Interval departures are always a hit-or-miss and it's actually safer to take off in formation than waiting 8-20 seconds between take-offs (or landings).

That's how it works. Same in the F-5.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply! I know you guys will make this little rocket even better in the future Check the gauge at about 02:30 - you can see both the spool up time and the little gauge being in 1/1

Exactly, so you can use the F1M pretty much anywhere you like. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the F-104C isn't anywhere near a believable flight model. It's thrust and lift performance are too good, the roll-response is way too little, the engine-response is way too bad and it's got systems issues all over the place. All of that is normal for a mod and it probably will at least partially be corrected in future iterations. It's not on par with my expectations for the Aerges 104. I don't think so. People who enjoy systems-depth will not be repelled by the mod being out before the module. If you're on the fence, you'll be able to use the trial system at some time and decide whether the diference is worth your cash or not. I'll buy the Aerges 104 right at launch. I'll most probably keep the 104C alongside the Aerges 104 - if it gets better. It fills a slightly different niche than the 104G and it's a 'nam bird.

The CWG map won't go anywhere and if anything, it's just going to be fleshed out even more during the next couple of months. In it's gurrent state, there's precisely one historical F-104G airbase on the whole playable map. Two, if you account for the short intermezzo of RCAF CF-104s at Zweibrücken. Maybe four if you account for some shorter USAF F-104C detachments in the early 60s. The mod's nice. It's nowhere near to what Aerges has demonstrated as their quality and devotion to modelling a module in the past (C-101) and present (Mirage F1), though. Aerges has shown they'll go the extra mile for user requests and they have demonstrated ongoing support for multiple sub-variants of their modules (two in the C-101, four for the F1). The F1M is not going to change the world or anybody's life. It's going to e out of place in A-A and also A-G for it's time frame (late 90s). It is, however, going to be a nice round-off and it'll be the first modernized cold-war module in DCS. All the thech developed into the F1M (including the radar-revamp) will be beneficiary to the 104, which will proably also come in several variants. What kinds of operational scenarios a module fits in, is entirely up to the the user.

One more observation also feeding into the "too much thrust" bucket: Approach should be 87-90% RPM with land flaps. I do have to put the boards out to make those numbers work. Without boards, I'll have to go to 80'ish percent, which IRL would cut off BLC bleed air (most likely asymmetrically) and ruin the whole day...

Hey guys, I think those smoke stacks are a bit of a stretch in that area: Crashing into that water-tower in a non precision approach in fog will at least provide for some instant fire-suppression... On a more serious note, I doubt those stacks are meeting TERPS-criteria, so they should be removed or be replaced by less tall stacks.

I'd absolutely go crazy abut a proper german Alphons. Given the additional complexity (Dopper Nav and HUD), that probably goes way beyond the scope of a normal mod. The french Gadjet will work sorta well in Luftwaffe colours and some different loadouts for our intents, but it's gonna suffer from the weaker motors of the french variant, when all bombed up, and we won't have the benefit of HUD delivery modes.

I used a KC-130 to LARP a KC-95.

Did some more testing yesterday and I can second that. Taking off in a crosswind will dip the wing immediately on liftoff and the jet won't keep the wings level when trimmed for hands-off flying. Generally, the jet should stay where you last pointed it. Also, how do I get the tanker to talk to me? I tried building a mission to sip some gas, but the tanker won't answer my calls. The radio was hard-tuned to same freq (251) via the ME. I also tried fumbling with the radio (TR and TR+G) but the tanker seemed to not care about my calls anyway, despite calling "on station".

Hey @PeeJott17 thanks for the very nice mod! Here are some thoughts I had after throwing the jet around (version 2.9.16.099): - The engine gauge (small dial) seems to read 0.1% percents, while it should read whole percents. - The engine-response needs to be quicker (see F-4E for reference - about 4s idle to MIL) - The engine seems to have too much thrust in MIL and in blower relative to the available lift/drag, which also seems slightly high. On the deck I have trouble keeping speeds below 450 (flaps T/O) and maintaining 7g in burner, which suggests too much thrust (and lift!) in blower and flaps T/O. I can even maintain higher g than that. A somewhat similar behaviour with flaps up and in MIL at about 500KIAS: Not enough drag and I'll have to go to just below 5 on the APC gauge to make her slow down at all. With the -7 motor, the jet should be a bit more thrust-limited during those turns. The -19 motor in a late A might be a different story altogether. Config tested was two AIM-9Bs on the tips. - Roll-response is too sluggish. The jet should roll WAY quicker. Roll damping seems okay to me, though. - Pitch generally seems alright, even though I believe there's a little too much lift in those wing-stubs and I barely need to use the T/O flaps to make the nose come around when flying clean. - The rate-shaker is probably hard to implement. Are you planning to implement the kicker and the APC-cutout function for the kicker in the future? The C seems to not have a paddle-switch for the kicker, though. I personally believe the pitch-up is a bit too high-gain and should have a smoother and somewhat more controllable, yet progressive onset. Modelling might be very hard, though.

Time for a Bump

wwiiairfcraftperformance unfortunately is down and only the first test (ptr-1107: F4U-1 vs F6F-3 vs Fw 190) is attainable otherwise via web archives. Do you possibly have a link to the latter ('44 trials)? Guyton in "Whistling Death" quotes "more than 180°/s" which I find to be grossly exaggerated, given the data at hand. As mentioned before, 120-145°/s is reasonable at high speeds, given the data out of America's Hundred Throusand. But not at ~250mph, where the 190 peaks. For that, you'd need substantial modifications on the ailerons and possiblythe wing, instead of just adding boost-tabs. Boost tabs alone will help slightly in initial roll response (*) and mostly in achievable roll rate at high speed. They won't change achievable roll-rate at speeds below max attainable stick-force. ___ (*) time for the stick to bang onto the stop is quicker, the lighter the required forces are

Where's that data from?

The data in America's Hundred Throusand shows a top roll-rate of around 90°/s (at 290 mph, graph shows a limited speed range, though) and claims anecdotal rates of up to 120°/s at about 350mph. Extrapolating the available graph shows that's a believable claim, but no actual data is given. That means the 190 would roll quicker below about 320mph and the Corsair above 320mph (give or take a couple of mph). At 255mph (the 190's calculated peak roll rate at 50lbs stick force), the Fw is about 100% better than the Corsair's roll-rate (160°/s vs 80°/s).

IIRC the test you're referring to was with a F4U-4 with improved ailerons. F4U-1 should be around 90°/s, give or take.

Interesting. On all the attempts so far that had me actually touch the deck, I trapped (8-10 traps total so far). Single mission built by myself on Mariannas WW2. Yes, the hook will skip (and it does clip the deck, which seems to be a known issue). Usually I'll catch the wire abeam of the aft part of the island and stop normally. Have you tried approaching lower and cutting earlier?

Will the Essex class carrier have catapults and other features in the future - e.g a functional crash barrier?

+1

Refer to this thread for some more Magic 1 perf info (anecdotal by SME). Also note the Magic 1 has a wrong model - the notches in the rear fins are Magic 2 only features. The model used to be correct in the regard a couple of patches ago.

The crash wasn't attributed to torque roll at all. The video Krupi posted is pointing out the real issue: Pilot probably panicked and applied LEFT rudder when leaving the bow, mixed with signifigant up elevator. The airplane stalled and went for a rudder-induced low speed snap-roll. The video sequence is taken from a longer video, showing Carquals. The other pilots are doing just fine, taking off, landing and waving off in close, using proper control technique: Mishap is about 5:15 into the video. When flown correctly, there should be no torque-rolling about.