Bremspropeller

It was MP.

Okay, so I did two tests that were reproducing Ivan's suggestions. Safe for the 650KIAS to M1.8 part, which wasn't available due to 1.8 being below 650KIAS at both altitudes I tried. 1) climb to 360 @M0.92 => push over 0g* to -10° down to 300 and level accel to LIM at M1.98 Fuel remaining 2640L after 6:12min 2) climb to 350 @M0.94=> push over 0g to -10° down to 320 and level accel to LIM at M2.05 Fuel remaining 2620L after 6:50min F1-Mach_test7.trk F1-Mach_test8.trk Seems like the profile "2" from the prior test-run with a higher initial climb and a more aggressive, steeper dive to M1.2+ is the better way, preserving 100l of fuel. *0.5g pushover was too timid and had me bust the pushover altitude

Abu Dhabi at night. The police light is working now

I'll give it a try, thanks Ivan.

Here are my results from the tests above - all tests are starting at M0.85 at FL250 with two Magics. Caucasus map, zero wind and 15°C. 1) climb to 350 @ M0.9 => push over at -10° down to 285 @ M1.2 => climb back to 305 @ M1.2 => level acceleration to LIM @ M1.98 Fuel remaining ~2620l after 6:33min (I substracted 20s of "idle time" in the track) 2) climb to 400 @ M0.9 => push over -15° down to 305 @M1.25 => level acceleration to LIM @ M2.0 Fuel remaining ~2750l after 6:17min ==> quickest profile tested 3) climb to 405 @M0.9 => push over -10° to 315 @M1.25 => level accel to M1.4 and climb to 360 @M1.45 => level acceleration to LIM at M2.1 Fuel remaining ~2680l after 7:22min 4) climb to 400 @ M0.9 => push over -10° to 320 @M1.25 => level accel to M1.4 and climb to 400 @M1.45 => push over -2.5° to 350 => level accel to LIM @ M2.1 Fuel remaining ~2630l after 7:47min 5) climb to 300 at M1.05 => A/P misuse clusterduck with shallow climbs and descents => level accel at 300 to LIM @ M1.98 Fuel remaining ~2580l after 6:29min 6) climb to 360 @M0.94 => level accel to M1.4 and climb to 440 @ M1.4 => push over -3.0° down to 355 @ M1.6 => level accel to LIM @ M2.1 Fuel remaining ~2300l after 10:54min After reviewing all tracks, it's evident that there's somewhat of a struggle in the M1.45 to M1.55 region. Flying dolfo's suggested profile makes you sped a lot of time not accelerationg (in a climb at high'ish AoA) or stagnating in the M1.5 region through the descent. Maybe lowering the nose a couple of degrees more would have yielded a quicker punch through that region but still it would have taken longer, covered more ground and used up more fuel. Note that reaching LIM higher yields a higher final Mach, which takes additional time to reach. Quickest to M2.1 is probably just short of 7mins from the starting point.

I just tried it out - I didn't perfectly follow your profile (bunted over at 430 or 440) - it doesn't yield greater performance. You'll cover more ground and use about as much fuel to Mach (give or take 100-200l maybe) as with the other methods. She's sticky at around 1.2, 1.5 and 1.9, where acceleration slows down. Note I fell out of survitesse twice during the climb from 360 to the mid 40s for a couple of seconds each, because I wasn't maintaining Mach perfectly. That doesn't change much about the result, though. F1-Mach_test6.trk

Dolfo, thanks for the suggestion - I'll give it a try tonight! The reason why I opened this thread is to ask whether this is intentional, or if it's just a byproduct of some other change in DCS that has slipped through. So my point is not necessarily looking for the most efficient profile (which would be nice to know anyway, though), but to figure out what's going on in the first place. "Back in the old days" (before 2.8), there really was no need to optimise for Ps - the aircraft would be accelerating well enough to not seek out more performance by climbing and bunting over. You'd just accelerate and at M 1.8 (if you wanted or needed to), start a climb to the desired altitutude. I'll test your suggested profile and report back.

@Flappie do you possibly know anything about any tweaks? I'd say it's okay under ISA conditions up to about M1.45, when it kind of runs into a brick wall. I've tried several profiles to minimize time spent in the transonic region, but at the end of the day, you'll always kind of hang yourself up around 1.5 to 1.6, where it seems to enter a region of quicksand. It used to blow through this region rather well before 2.8, with a pretty constant acceleration right up to the LIM light. Now you get a slight leap at M1.35 to M1.4 (when survitesse comes on) but that slows down again around 1.45. Getting from 1.4 to 1.6 almost takes as long as getting from 0.9 to 1.2. There might be some additional testing to be done, but I'll call it a night for now. F1-Mach_test1.trkF1-Mach_test2.trkF1-Mach_test3.trkF1-Mach_test4.trk Fun fact, I also did a test climbing to 40000ft and the accelerationg in level flight just to see where it would take me. Not a good idea - you'll just bimble around in the transonic region with too much AoA to push past M 1.1 before the alternator-light comes on. It's interesting to see the shock travel around slowly on the pitot and play games with the altimeter and Autopilot, though. Both altimeters read an altitude difference of around 1500ft at one point.

The F1 used to accelerate like a hot knife through butter in the supersonic region - with a bit of a struggle through the transonic region - but since 2.8 it seems like achieving max Mach is taking a good deal longer. Anybody else have the same impression? Is this behaviour intended? The changelog only reads "reduced induced drag near transonic speeds".

El Carafate RWY 25, SA map. I just put an aircraft onto the map and played around with the weather - straight out of the mission editor, yeah.

I get lost lacing my shoes when there's no magentaline to follow! Nah, Iactually do like the challenge - just haven't seen LOC and GS split across two instruments before.

OK, I checked again - the ILS does work. It's just the FD needle that won't do it's thing. The GS is indicated by the small carrot on the left of the ADI. Makes for a bit of an afwufl scan (LOC from the HSI, GS from the ADI, but I guess the FD will fix that later).

It's got more power for starters. Two weapon-pylons more and a broader AG loadout (no AA missiles, though). It does look great. If it's better, well, that's up to you. I like them both. The 339 has a couple of extra quirks that are cool, like the engine stalling in icing or rolling back, when ingesting too much water on takeoff.

JPG compression at work. Looks quite good in action. === 200kts is about all he could get to with this loadout at 32C. Returning to the FARP. Firefighters at readiness. 'tis but a scratch!

Just a quick flight about the El Calafate area.

I had a similar thing happen to me on a mission I built from El Calafate on the SA map. That airfield has an ILS on RWY 25. ILS Freq tuned, PWR "on", CRS set on RWY heading (manually) and "VOR" button pressed. Only had a LOC indication on the HSI. The Needles on the ADI never showed up. TACAN also works for me. AA does not work, though - at least not trying to use a yardstick.

The NWS happens when (even slightly) overspeeding the gear and when hitting one of those famous DCS runway-bumps. All of that happened to me as well. I even had NWS break on me on lgd rollout. Had to use NWS, because the rudder is useless in any kind of crosswind when below touchdown speed.

I've just recorded a quick and dirty track. I think the stability of the aircraft is a tiny bit too great upon any stick-movement (compared to other modules, including the C-101 and L-39) and the rudder in particular yields too little effectiveness (achievable sideslip-angle vs. rudder deflection angle). Also notice, the controls-indication is reversed for the rudder. I can hardly have the ball swing out with full rudder on finals. 339Rudder.trk

Bei HB würde ich mir da erstmal keine Gedanken machen und vorbehaltlos an Tag eins des Vorverkaufs zuschlagen. Der Track Record von HB spricht für sich. Dass das Flugzeug nun womöglich erst '23 kommt, treibt mich auch nicht wirklich in die Depression. Bin noch gut mit der F1 beschäftigt

Yes. The rudder-effectivity could use some steroids. I can hardly create any meaningful sideslip with the pedals maxed and cross-controlling.

Die MB-339 st ein Stück performanter und hat zwei Waffenstationen mehr als die C-101 und L-39. Die Bewaffnungsoptionen sind bei der Macchi etwas umfangreicher - abgesehen davon, dass sie keine Heater tragen kann. Da haben die L-39 und C-101 ihren Vorteil. Wenn man Trainer mag und sie auch öfter fliegt, dann kann man durchaus drüber nachdenken. Stehen die anderen Trainer auch nur im Hangar, dann braucht man nicht den dritten Staubfänger.

+1

Have considered Automan's advice (relight button)? That could be the issue, since the throttle seems to stay in place.

Engine Master and JPT Limiter on? Possible double bind on an axis?