Bremspropeller

Hey @VPS_SPIT any updates on that Vexin bird?

I engaged the Anti Ice after the Ice Warning came on on the Master Caution Panel. The ASI only froze after the Pitot Heat was engaged (and with some delay). @Bananabrai and @Hiob can second this observation - happened to all three of us on different times, flying together. Always with ICE caution and after engaging the pitot heat switch. Readings in rear and frontal cockpit were the same (zero).

Yes and in both aircraft. Had this happen before with other people as well.

On the ILS into Creech. In the weather, heading for Laughlin to shoot the VOR approach. Frontseater seems to be doing fine. Starting down into the soup. Note the frozen ASI - despite Pitot Anti-Ice on...

I think it's to add SA as circlings can get messy quickly if you have the wrong mental picture. The other way to circle would be the long way around *south*, so adding northWEST seems redundant. I once saw a C-32 doing circle-to-lands at Savannah when I went there for my IR XC. Looked pretty cool!

A fixed Fw 190D-9 external model with correct dihedral and stuff.

I think it's perfect time for a Lerche. The G6 has significantly less performance. Kind of like the A-8 vs D-9 in the Fw 190 universe. Plus it was actually used on the map(s) we have. I would not mind a P-38 or F6F, but a Yak? That would be a third EF plane without even a map. Nah, thanks.

Bump. Any news on plans of fixing the Sidewinder aft placement and maybe a word on Sidewinder-pylons and whether they're intended? Cheers.

It's spelled J A G U A R.

That's a Barax ECM pod. edit: fixed the quote

Thanks Flappie!

It should look like this, though:

Even against the MiG-21, as the SMB2 was used in Israel through the YKW till the mid 70s. In France it was also used till the mid-late 70s, when they were replaced by F1Cs in 12EC. And in Honduras (former IDF aircraft with the J52 engine mod/ extended tailpipes) they soldiered on untill the mid 90s. The Mystere IV was used in the Suez Crisis and during the SDW. India also used their Mystere IV against Pakistan. Either one would be a first day buy with a slight preference for the SMB2. Same for the M III and M5. And for the Rafale - I'd prefer it to be the M. So where do I get in line to queue up for those modules?

Hey ED dudes and dudettes, it would be awesome if we could force the activation of an ILS (even if it's a backcourse due to the prevailing wind) in the mission-builder. If there's more than one ILS per airfield, it would be even more awesome if we could chose which one is active and which one isn't. Thanks.

The Hunter would be a first day buy for me. Any updates on the project? What about the Tucano? Seems very interesting to me as well.

"Gray Ghosts" pg 121: It's not just for automated carrier-landings, but also for giving steering-cues or -commands for such equipped aircraft. Seems like the trouble wasn't on the F-4J's end, though.

In Quigon's Kerbe kann man nochmal reinschlagen und versuchen, die JDAM mit anderen Abwurfparametern zu werfen: - höher abwerfen (mehr Zeit in Terminal Guidance, mehrE_pot) - schneller abwerfen (mehr E_kin) - Kombination daraus - JDAM mal im leichten Dive werfen Vielleicht kristallisieren sich dann ein paar Anhaltspunkte heraus. Du hast keinen Wind eingestellt - du könntest aber mal spaßeshalber die Temperatur verschieben. Probier mal 15°C, anstatt 32°C.

Das ist wohl eher seine persönliche Technik. Gibt genügend Videos, in denen die DLCs mehr arbeiten. Was man jedenfalls nicht tun sollte, ist das Flugzeug 'at the ramp' mit DLC auf den Ball zurückzuzwingen. Erstens, weil daraus schnell "into the ramp" werden kann. Zweitens, weil es das das Fahrwerk überlasten könnte, wenn die Sinkrate bis zum Aufsetzen nicht wieder gebrochen werden kann. Am besten kommt man ohne aus (DLC neutral, nicht aus) - das geht auch mit ein bissen Übung recht schnell. Ich nutze DLC eigentlich auch nur, um Trends zu brechen, bzw. zu beginnen. Wenn man sich aber zu sehr darauf verlässt, wird man schnell zum DLC-Krüppel.

Okay, so in the quest for making sense of it all, I decided to "manual up" and got a hand on some handbooks. I've seen there's a time-to-climb reference in the F1ED's kneecard which I tried to follow. The figures are pretty close for a time-to-climb from a standstill to FL300 (time within a couple of seconds and fuel consumption within maybe 50l or so). It all breaks down above FL300 where the aircraft in DCS overperforms significantly. It's reaching FL500 about 40s* sooner than according to schedule and uses up roughly 400l more gas. That adds up to DCS having a somewhat lacking rendition (non-existant?) of a tropopause with denser air and hence better performance at the cost of higher fuel consumption. F1_0to500.trk The FL300toM2.1 test has the aircraft almost two minutes ahead of schedule and using about 500l too little fuel (because it reaches Mach 2.1 so quickly). But that is most probably also down to a non-existant TROP. F1_300toM21.trk ___ *it's actually more than 3 minutes sooner - I looked up the wrong number

Stagnated at 1.15 after performing a -12° dive from 420 in full stereo. Two JULIs, one 530EM and two empty inboard wing-pylons. WX was on the warm side. On the bright side, she maintained 1.15 through the mil-power dive down to about 11k.

Some impressions from a night time supersonic intercept mission out of Paphos, that I'm currently trying to wrap my head around.

Is there a way to permanently remove this lamp?

Yes, survitesse was working normally. My impression was, that the intakes might (might!) have a play here as you'll se a corellation between intake-position/ Mach and the acceleration-rate picking up again. My impression has the intake-position slightly ahead of the indicated Mach (comparing gauge vs gauge). But that could be normal and intended. To slow down, you can always just come out of burner into max dry and stay at that RPM - just don't pull back the throttle and decrease RPM. Same here. You're now dead meat against a MiG-21 with a competent pilot, unless you manage to get into a scissors, where the F1 has superior controllability and about equal performance. The 21 will out-rate you and will turn inside you one-circle, where it can rely on the engine to power out of any lost energy. The F1 will outpace the 21 quite well in max dry, which mirrors it's higher military thrust rating. In a side-by-side Mach run, the 21 will walk away from the F1. We didn't do any fancy profiles, just bunt over to get through to 1.2 and then level acceleration. Well, I did, the 21 started a shallow climb and walked away at a steady pace - he was about 0.2 faster than me at any given time beyond me getting through 1.2. I didn't put this into the bug section, because I don't have 'facts over feels' either, so it can be handelled more as a discussion than a "teh plane iz br0ken" complaint. I was just really surprised to see a significant performance-drop without any indication of any linked factors in the change log.

I can just about match that. My airplane is a tiny bit heavier and my flying is a bit sloppier than yours F1-Mach_test10.trk The question that remains is whether the last patch did anything to the performance. All those people I've been flying with do feel that the aircraft has lost some performance and it's evident in the Mach-run, which used to be quicker. Note that leaving 25% of fuel at home (75% instead of 100%) cut almost 20s off the time to reach M2.0 in this profile. What do you think about the M1.5 speed-bump? It almost seems like the intakes need a bit of time to adjust and once they're in the correct position, the aircraft picks up it's acceleration again. It's more evident when the aircraft is heavier.

Doing some performance testing vs. the Fishbed.