Bremspropeller

Hey Pappy, thanks a lot for your explanations! Is there a way to estimate through the available manuals, how much drag the inboards with 4x AIM-9 are factoring in for the Juliet? The difference between slats/ no slats should qualitatively persist, of course, but I'd imagine taking off the inboards on the J would shift the numbers a little more towards parity. Maybe 30-35% (just a random guess) fuel to achieve the same STR as the slatted Echo at 60%.

The tech used in Sinai gives me a little more hope this could be feasible.

There are some airfields that are obviously coming in a future update, like the egyptian Mirage 2000's home, Gebel el Basur (seen above). Looks like Tanta/ Birma isn't prepared in such a way, though. Are you still planning to put the airfield in?

Because that's where I carry my toothbrush and undies.

The thick lines are the corresponding ITR lines to the thin lines, which are the STR lines. LH line of the doghouse is the lift limit (AoA limited). RH roof-line of the doghouse is the structural limit. Not sure why it changes from 7.33g to 6g, but Pappy will surely be able to explain that. The vertical line on the right is either Mach/ KIAS limit or max attainable airspeed/ Mach, which is lower on the slatted bird, thanks to the additional drag.

I'd much rather have a proper Hawk and a proper Alpha Jet. Yes, that's an AND.

Same in VU37

Same issue here. M2000C though. Switching off the mirrors stopped it. No VR.

Somewhat touching the missile+bombs on the inboards discussion (201 sqn jets): TER with three 117s on the LH inbaord with a single AIM-9 on the RH inboard. Same thing (opposite sides) and with the AIM-9 rails still in place on the RH inboard: Here's a 119 sqn jet with MK 8x on the LH inboard pylon.: Looks like the IDF at least at times went for asymmetric loadouts to answer the question of interference. Can anybody support or deny that assumption?

Quite the opposite for me. You can all have your memejets and fart into your PX suit at 80kft and climbing, after purging nitro for 30 minutes suiting up and having an aide carry your mobile AC to the jet. I'll just head over to the bar in my sweaty cotton-suit and order a Mai-Tai, while somebody is unloading that bbq I brought over in my jet's empty camera-compartment.

I saw 260 yesterday in a slick, while testing. Pretty much straight an level. That was soon followed by a smoking hole in the ground, as I tried a quick roll. Yes, please make the door-removal beneficial.

Thanks for the update guys! After adjustig to the new behaviour, I think it's flying 'easier' than before. Makes me get even more excited about the Kiowa.

You'll have to separate at least three categories of issue with the Sparrow: 1) Handling and OPS troubles (e.g. groundcrew mistakes and those issues coming off of the operations, e.g. keeping the Sparrows on board for ages, including multiple traps and cat-shots for the Navy or high humidity effing with the electrical connectors and electronics for everybody) 2) Firing outside of envelope or switchology issues (not enough training) => that one also messed up a couple of Sidewinder shots 3) Actual missile suckery

Sumt'n like this? If DCS could some time in the future give us a similar level of immersion, this would knock my socks off.

I did try the open parking slots in the west at Nevatim for the 18s. No joy - they'd also start in the air when usung "start at ramp". Starting on ground does work well. F-5s also had trouble at Nevatim. At first I thought it's the outboard canted tails of the F-18s that do a lot of harm, making them hard to fit under the shelters, but that seems to not be the issue. Ramon is doing fine.

Still present. The entire tail (horizontal and vertical) is too dark with ambient light going low. That includes being on the shadowy side of the airframe in daylight.

Had a similar issue with the F1 at Ramon and with the F-18 at Nevatim, which seems to be especially bad: No single ramp-start position with a roof I tried so far did work there.

My Gazelle is gonna walk like an egyptian tonight.

You forgot Paul Hogan.

TBH, I'd love to make a bleedin heart Viper driver cry with a volley of MICAs.

Having seen a MiG-17F perform at Tico Airshow 2016 made me think about one of the comments of a Have Drill participant - paraphrasing: "The turning capability of this aircraft has to be seen live, to believe it". I'm kind of also hoping to see the AS with the R-3S down the line.

In the current state of things, I'd agree with you. If DCS some time manages to get the whole logistics stuff on board, things might change. I'm personally not too interested into gunships, as there's other modules for making things go boom already. I'm more into transporting stuff, logistics, throwing out a couple of paras, looking for a tiny dinghy adrift in the vast ocean or doing infil/ exfil stuff. That's where transports do widen the spectrum of missions in DCS. Niche maybe - maybe - but so are combat flight sims in general and if a transport pulls over a couple of civvies who want to fly a Herc under fire, then that's great. I think people will have a lot of fun doing Khe Sanh (logistics under fire) or Kolwezi ops (dropping para commandos in a small scale conflict), which are just two examples for borader logistical or smaller scale commando style operations. The latters will be fun in combinaton with the light attack helos (Bo 105, Gazelle update, Kiowa). You could even design humanitarian throw-out-a-bag-of-food missions with time constraints and triggers challenging and fun.

It's gonna be a cool map for the Bo 105. The G.91 will also feel at home on the (hopefully) various roadbases. Too bad we don't have an Alpha Jet A. I'm also hoping for more tactical fixed wing transporters e.g. C-160 and G.222/ C-27 classes.

More transport aircraft would be awesome. Especially if we had some cool bush airstrips to drop crates on/ into.

TACAN approaches are normal non-precision approaches which you would fly off the approach charts in the kneeboard. The charts are either included with the map or they're dowloadable for most airfields. I think I've seen a DOD-style PAR approach plate for Cecil Field - so I'd hazard a guess they're field-specific procedures as well. Here's Gwangju, ROK (Jepp Chart) - it uses both ASR and PAR for opposite runways. Note there's no actual 'procedure' besides the mised approach instructions, as you're being vectored onto final by radar and you're talked down by radar as well. ASR is without altitude guidance, so it's basicly your NP PAR with higher minimums. Note there are no circling minimums for PAR, which is straight in only, but for ASR there are. Hope this at least partially answers your question. As a rule of thumb, if you're configured and on speed around the Final Approach Fix, you're going to do okay. Unless you're a Space Shuttle: Edit: Here's a nice PPT with non standard approach procedures that also covers ASR and PAR quite well: https://www.slideserve.com/gasha/non-standard-approaches