DCS: F-5E!

[mlazos]

Actually i dont lose in the vertical. On the horizontal I cant follow. When I try to turn with the mig i die. so I dont agree with you. The Mig is turning much tighter than the F-5. On the vertical though i can stay out of line using the rudders. I never lose on the vertical. But as I said the main issue here is the visibility in the DCS. I die flyging straight because I dont see anything. many times i lose sight above the sea, the enemy plane just disappears. also the thrust to weight ratio depends to the fuel quantity. When I drop tanks and I burnt 20-30% of internal fuel, I have no problem climbing. this is what usually happens. I dtop tanks, and by the 2nd or 3rd loop, I have burnt already 20-30% of my fuel using afterburner.

[Nerd1000]

Actually i dont lose in the vertical. On the horizontal I cant follow. When I try to turn with the mig i die. so I dont agree with you. The Mig is turning much tighter than the F-5. On the vertical though i can stay out of line using the rudders. I never lose on the vertical. But as I said the main issue here is the visibility in the DCS. I die flyging straight because I dont see anything. many times i lose sight above the sea, the enemy plane just disappears. also the thrust to weight ratio depends to the fuel quantity. When I drop tanks and I burnt 20-30% of internal fuel, I have no problem climbing. this is what usually happens. I dtop tanks, and by the 2nd or 3rd loop, I have burnt already 20-30% of my fuel using afterburner.

What speed are you turning at? It can make a big difference- I easily follow the F-5 in my MiG at speeds above 800 km/h but at slower speeds I have a lot more trouble. In the vertical, I'm yet to be out-climbed by a F-5 . Loops are a different matter because a loop is also a turn, albeit one in the vertical rather than the horizontal.

 

Based on what you say it seems that the F-5 is in similar straits to the MiG when it comes to fuel use in combat, so I was wrong to suggest exploiting the MiG's thirst for kerosene in a dogfight.

[Hummingbird]

Can't wait till the update that fixes the max instantanuous & sustained load factors of the F-5. Going to be real interesting to see how it stacks up with the MiG21 then.

 

Like I said a long time ago when discussing how the two compared, I believe the much higher T/W ratio of the MiG21 is going to generally give it the upper hand if flown correctly. The F-5 can turn tighter thanks to its high lift devices, but that's about it when it comes to flight characteristics. The much higher speed of the MiG aldo means that it can pick and choose when and where to fight and disengage almost at will.

[BlackhatEspeed]

Finally figured out how to set the trim, you have to hit the reset button on the stick, then move the trim control which is actually the black POV knob on the stick, alternatively you can press RCtrl+; or you can setup your flight stick to do it. :D

 

Try hitting the brakes Maverick, still going to smoke ya

[TBear]

Actually i dont lose in the vertical. On the horizontal I cant follow. When I try to turn with the mig i die. so I dont agree with you. The Mig is turning much tighter than the F-5. On the vertical though i can stay out of line using the rudders. I never lose on the vertical. But as I said the main issue here is the visibility in the DCS. I die flyging straight because I dont see anything. many times i lose sight above the sea, the enemy plane just disappears. also the thrust to weight ratio depends to the fuel quantity. When I drop tanks and I burnt 20-30% of internal fuel, I have no problem climbing. this is what usually happens. I dtop tanks, and by the 2nd or 3rd loop, I have burnt already 20-30% of my fuel using afterburner.

 

If U check Mig 21 and Tiger's EM charts U can see that they almost match, with the F5 that has little better turn rate at corner speed. So the ability is to keep your speed as much near the EM apex as U can.

Its all matter of energy management and speed-altitude trading.

Easy to say...not so easy to do..cause U have to evaluate both Ur energy state and Ur opponent one and add this variables to the positional situation..

Pesonally I still need lot of training :music_whistling::smartass::pilotfly:

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Hi guys!, recently purchased the F-5 and I have a couple of cuestions:

 

1-First thing I noticed is that I cant get closer to the instruments panel with the tracking as I can with other planes, like an invisible limit. I guess this is due to the fact that pilot is modeled and in real life pilots are tied to the seat but even if thats the reason for this, I find it a bit anoying for a flight sim. Am I right??there is any way to disable this??

 

2- When performing a max rate 360º roll (plane in empty config) at most speeds, after finishing (stick again in neutral position) the plane tends to "follow" the roll la bit more in a "weird" way I have never seen before in any other plane...its like for 1 or 2 sec it still making the roll with a bit of yaw...its quite weird, specially because if you make an slower roll this effect never happens, as well as if you make a max rate (max stick pulling) SEMI roll :huh:, how is that possible? ...with the plane loaded the effect becomes less visible.

 

Is that a normal behaviour for this plane??

[Foxhound_vva]

When performing a max rate 360º roll (plane in empty config) at most speeds, after finishing (stick again in neutral position) the plane tends to "follow" the roll la bit more in a "weird" way I have never seen before in any other plane...its like for 1 or 2 sec it still making the roll with a bit of yaw...its quite weird, specially because if you make an slower roll this effect never happens, as well as if you make a max rate (max stick pulling) SEMI roll :huh:, how is that possible? ...with the plane loaded the effect becomes less visible.

 

Is that a normal behaviour for this plane??

 

Slight nose wandering during continuous rolls is common for this airplane due to extremely pronounced inertia coupling. Another effect of the inertia coupling is the increase of AOA and G during rolls. For these reasons continuous rolls are prohibited and roll entry G is limited in order to prevent the airplane from exceeding critical G's and stall AOA's. Continuous rudder rolls at AOA close to stall are also prohibited because of high probability of spin entry.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Thanks for your reply mate!

 

About the slight wandering, I think you meant a different thing...almost all planes tend to draw a "cone" with the nose as you perform rolls o several rolls, this is "normal" behaviour, but I mean that this plane tends to CONTINUE performing the roll long after the pilot stops it/revert the stick to neutral position (and with a bit of weird shake at the same time)...and that only seems to happen in max rate rolls, anything below max and it performs "right", stopping the roll sharply as most modern fighters.

 

Maybe thats what you meant but not sure because Im not talking about the effect of continous rolls, but when you suddenly STOP performing the roll, thats the thing...hope to be clearer now (would love to upload a video, but my upload speed is such a crap I cant do it, sorry.

[Foxhound_vva]

Perhaps this is due to the effect of the slip. Pay attention to the movement of the ball on the slip indicator. Try to perform the roll 360 without slipping. Typically slip occurs as a result of the roll 360 with the G more than 1. In real flight, it is very easy to do, there is a feeling of G. However, it is a little harder in the simulator.

In fact, we will think what to do.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Foxhound_vva

[cofcorpse]

Is that a normal behaviour for this plane??

 

Do you use your joystick or trying with keyboard? Also, there is no any automatic thing in roll channel so plane won't stop to roll right away. There is some inertia in it and it will roll a different time after stick is put to neutral depending of initial roll speed.

 

About some shake - could you record track with it so we could look into this issue?

[ФрогФут]

2- When performing a max rate 360º roll (plane in empty config) at most speeds, after finishing (stick again in neutral position) the plane tends to "follow" the roll la bit more in a "weird" way I have never seen before in any other plane...its like for 1 or 2 sec it still making the roll with a bit of yaw...its quite weird, specially because if you make an slower roll this effect never happens, as well as if you make a max rate (max stick pulling) SEMI roll , how is that possible? ...with the plane loaded the effect becomes less visible.

By the time you make 360 roll, you reach very high roll rates. There is no roll damper in this plane. In order to stop, when you want, you will have to make a counter move. That is normal for planes with high roll rate/roll inertia and no FCS assistance.

[Pocket Sized]

The left over transients sound like they could be caused by the yaw damper.

 

The pitch damper takes a few seconds to settle after aggressive maneuvering, I imagine the yaw damper is similar since they're both pure analog.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Thanks for all your answers guys!!

 

I have done some "test flights" (using joy, my X52 pro) and I guess its normal for this plane as you said...I have noticed that at 0,9/1.0 Match, the effect is gone and that inertia seems to dissapear (well, its there of course, just seems to disspate due to the great amount of sustentation I guess). With the plane loaded or heavily loaded the effect is practically non existant so I think it must be the old school pre-FBW systems.

 

Btw, I must say Im totally shock about about how DAMN GOOD! the flight dynamics has been done in this plane...after just a few hours of flying and testing (not only this little thing of rolling) lost of things Im just fxxing impressed!!!!:notworthy:

 

The plane flies like nothing I have flown before, its a real pleasure to fly, not too old, not too modern which I LOVE!!!its almost like a little F-16 but waay simpler and ED made an outstanding work giving that unique feeling/print of every single plane.:thumbup:

 

Doing some tests just jettison several heavy configurations (which was by itself pretty damn fun in this plane) and its incredible how well the weights and balancing are felt...the editor even let me install a CBU-52 in external right pilon which almost made me crash instantly after take of due to the extreme bad weigh balancing haha, damn, even could notice that something bad was going on during take-off run through the runway...AMAZING!!

 

And the rest of the aspects are really good also...sound is really good, model is very good, etc (just the new wings vibration seems a bit odd, hope they fix it and make it more fluid/organic and why not, make the own wings fluctuate (not only flex) like the tips also would be INCREDIBLE)

 

really enjoying the F-5!!!!:)

 

I will try to upload a track later with the rolling thing :thumbup:

[ebabil]

https://steamdb.info/app/411894/subs/

[Reflected]

I visited an air museum in Madrid yesterday, and there was an F5! I knew it was tiny, but it really is super tiny. I was surprised. It was great to have a peek into the cockpit, looked very familiar, I could recognize all the knobs, levers and switches :)

 

[Robert31178]

Way cool!! Good pic too my man!

 

~S

[Shadow KT]

I got curious and didn't find a similar question. Didn't want to start a new thread, so just gonna ask here.

 

How come the F-5 can carry the training CAP-9M (Training 9M), but it can't carry an AIM-9M ?

Edited January 11, 2018 by Shadow KT

[ST0RM]

I got curious and didn't find a similar question. Didn't want to start a new thread, so just gonna ask here.

 

How come the F-5 can carry the training CAP-9M (Training 9M), but it can't carry an AIM-9M ?

 

I've wondered that myself. Belsimtek hasn't addressed any of the issues with the F-5, so it could be assumed that we're left with it as is.

 

Maybe a LUA edit could enable the -9M. However, you'd not pass any Integrity checks online.

[DonJosh]

In real life the f-5 aggressors use the CAP Aim-9P, but we dont these in DCS. So Belsimtek go with CAP Aim-9M version, I think

 

Gesendet von meinem PLK-L01 mit Tapatalk

[blkspade]

I don't even see the point of the captive missiles in the first place. They don't work, and do we need to pretend to shoot each other whilst already pretending to shoot each other.

[frixon28]

They don't work, and do we need to pretend to shoot each other whilst already pretending to shoot each other.

 

This right here is what I think about when I am trying to fall asleep.

 

Simulating a Simulation inside a Simulation

[NineLine]

I don't even see the point of the captive missiles in the first place. They don't work, and do we need to pretend to shoot each other whilst already pretending to shoot each other.

 

They are great when you build a co-op mission to fly with your buddy and you load him up with training missiles :D

[DaveRindner]

Very much agree. I will expand to a questionable need to develop training aircraft modules. In RL civ and mil flight school syllabus , a sim of a training airframe is needed, to prepare the student. But in consumer sim market, there is no need. For the most part at least. To a sim noobie, learning basics in AV-8B is perhaps not efficient. So an being proficient in F-5 or Hawk modules is appropriate. UH-1H and KA-50 modules , don't need IMHO, an R-22/R-44 module to prepare them. If the consumer/hobby flight sim market demands specific types, then I am good with that. Now for RL, yes there is a definite need for specific type sim modules. A student cannot go from glider to C-130L conversion, without T- types inbetween. A licenced ATP does need full motion sim time for specific type he or she will be flying. ATR crashes, according, to TSB, had lack of type training, as contributing causes. However in DCS, a C-130J, or C-27J modules, of we ever get them, do not need hobbyist to learn how to fly training type first. Just learn on the type in the module.

[ST0RM]

In real life the f-5 aggressors use the CAP Aim-9P, but we dont these in DCS. So Belsimtek go with CAP Aim-9M version, I think

 

Gesendet von meinem PLK-L01 mit Tapatalk

 

Not exactly. I just spent a couple of days out with the real VMFT-401, photographing their ops. Pretty sure they are flying with CAP-9Ms. See the pic I took?

[Vampyre]

Not exactly. I just spent a couple of days out with the real VMFT-401, photographing their ops. Pretty sure they are flying with CAP-9Ms. See the pic I took?

That's because Marine Corps aviation falls under the aegis of NAVAIR and the Navy never invested in the AIM-9P... which was an Air Force only missile in US service. He is correct in stating that the aggressor squadrons flew AIM-9P's though. The Air Force calls them aggressor squadrons but in the Navy and Marines they are adversary squadrons.