how does flight model compare to Real Life?

[hannibal]

i have not flown a real plane.

but feeling of flight feels very authentic when i fly the Su-25T.

A-10C is pretty good.. but the feel of weight seems more apparent on FC2, Su-25T.

 

anyways, what do you guys that have flown real planes, feel about DCS A-10C flight dynamics?

[kingneptune117]

When this simulator was being made, the developers were in close contact with real A-10C pilots to ensure authenticity in every aspect possible :thumbup:

[Thermal]

I've not flown at 250knots, but I have at 140 :)

 

It feels really "nice". There is a good sense of control input becoming more sloppy at slow speed. The incipient stall behavior is pretty good too, aileron reversal, and high speed angle of attack stuff feels like you have a real aircraft under your seat.

 

Also the clouds in the sim are absolutely awesome. Entering the fluffy cu-nim's on a 1/8th day is highly realistic (although the lighting there could do with a little tweak, it seems darker under clouds in real life).

[RodBorza]

If you take a look at Wikipedia (not the most reliable source of info, I know...), but there states that the Su-25T and the A-10 have somewhat similar characteristics:

Loaded weight:

A-10 - 47,094 lb (21,361 kg)

Su-25T - 16,990 kg (37,456 lb)

 

Engine thrust:

A-10 - 9,065 lbf (40.32 kN) each

Su-25T - 9,480 lbf (44.18 kN) each

 

However there is one significant difference:

Wing area:

A-10 - 47.0 m2 (506 ft2);)

Su-25T - 30.1 m2; (324 ft2)

 

So, what that means?

Means that considering ED has a good amount of technical knowledge on the airplanes they work with it, so the flight model must be pretty accurate. Also, mathematical flight models for U.S. planes are not that difficult to obtain, since many are featured in the specialized literature (mostly for 70's aircaft like A-10s and F-16s), so you have to believe that the models are pretty acurate.

So, all in all, plane by plane, what I think that occurs that you feel the Su-25T heavier than the A-10, boils down to wing area.

With a larger area, the A-10 has more lift (but also a littles bit more of drag). So for the same weight, the wings on the A-10 help it fly and take the load off of the engines a bit. The Su-25T with its swept wings has more speed, but on the down side is not as maneuverable at low speed as the A-10.

If you look at gliders, they do have a large straight wing, which allows them to maneuver at low speeds with a small (or no) engine. I think that was the philosophy behind the A-10, so that's why you feel it to be lighter than the Su-25T.

 

EDIT: And oh yeah, if you try to fly the A-10 with a whole load of GBU's under its belly, you'll feel the weight alright.:thumbup:

Edited March 8, 2011 by RodBorza

[Irregular programming]

Who needs wings?? :joystick:

 

 

I understand the A-10 is built like a tank, but I think someone forgot to check the "Both wings shot off flight model test" box.... just sayin'....

 

Well.. have you tried sawing the wings off a real a-10 and set the remaining wingtips on fire?

 

Thought not.. :pilotfly:

[RogueRunner]

Well.. have you tried sawing the wings off a real a-10 and set the remaining wingtips on fire?

 

Thought not.. :pilotfly:

 

It won't fly, that's for certain!! :music_whistling::music_whistling:

[MasterZelgadis]

Who needs wings?? :joystick:

 

 

I understand the A-10 is built like a tank, but I think someone forgot to check the "Both wings shot off flight model test" box.... just sayin'....

 

Speedbrakes! Speedbrakes!!! Oh....nevermind :D

[RodBorza]

Who needs wings?? :joystick:

 

 

I understand the A-10 is built like a tank, but I think someone forgot to check the "Both wings shot off flight model test" box.... just sayin'....

 

LOL.

Without wings, steady as she goes...

[Aylward]

What's surprising about that ?? Between the wing area left and the large tail section.. you still have a good bit of flight surface there.. Looks like the wings on an su25 now.. I landed one like this once. it was wild but controllable.

[RodBorza]

Yep, I agree. An Israeli F-15 was able to fly and land missing one wing, due to the wide body area.

 

[636_Castle]

Lol I saved an airframe once in the quickstart mission after losing a wing like that. I made it all the way home (barely) and then slammed into the runway, slid off the end of the runway, ruined the landing gear...but hey I survived. Might be interesting to see how that'd play out in the real world though.

[effte]

While I'm normally opposed to the 'credentials race', I guess some background is relevant here. Aero engineer flying spam cans, having flown gliders, mission crew. Been working on airliners, fast jets etc and of course taken the opportunity to get some sim time (big sims) on various aircraft over the years. Obviously never been near getting to fly an A-10. For what it is worth, DCS:A-10C is one of very few PC simulators where I have not found any major gripes regarding the flight model. Love it.

 

I do feel that losing a wing might just have a slightly more significant effect than what we are seeing though, but that's feeling - not fact. :)

[aaron886]

Obviously never been near getting to fly an A-10. For what it is worth, DCS:A-10C is one of very few PC simulators where I have not found any major gripes regarding the flight model. Love it.

 

+1. From every observation I can make, it's the most complete desktop simulator flight model I've ever "flown." Of course there's things that won't replicate real life exactly, but that's a task for a supercomputer. What ED has achieved with DCS:A-10C is revolutionary, IMO. Can't wait for more. :thumbup:

[Avilator]

Who needs wings?? :joystick:

 

 

I understand the A-10 is built like a tank, but I think someone forgot to check the "Both wings shot off flight model test" box.... just sayin'....

 

How do you still have roll control?:huh:

[Buzpilot]

The larger wing area should make it handle easier than the Su-25T, so not surprised of that.

But it also should make it easier to go higher, atm Service ceiling in game is 10000m ( about 32000 feet) at mach 0.75, according to encyclopedia.

But after the hypoxia problem was fixed in 1.106, and I could try it up there, it only get to mach 0.59.

Also when i read wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II, where it states Max ceiling 45000 feet, it seems that the A-10C is underpowered at high altitude.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzpilot

[effte]

Larger wing area and significantly longer moment arm for the ailerons.

 

Buzpilot,

drag index, OAT and gross weight when testing?

 

Edit: A model dash one (Wikipedia data also for A model) gives a 44,000 ft service ceiling at DI -4, GW 25k lbm and ISA-20. At ISA, you're down to 42,500. If the -1 and Wikipedia don't agree, I know which source I'd trust. On the C model, you have various bits and pieces added, such as the Pave Penny, GPS antenna and missile launch detectors, all adding drag and reducing ceiling.

 

Bringing out the CR-3 to use the parts of it I don't normally use (i e, if I miscalculate you have been warned): At 42,500 you should be at around 160 KIAS (-1 figure). Assuming 160 KCAS, as I couldn't find an altimeter correction chart, with OAT around -55 degrees centigrade (standard atm.) the resulting Mach would be approximately .6 and TAS around 340.

Edited March 8, 2011 by effte

[Buzpilot]

Buzpilot,

drag index, OAT and gross weight when testing?

No idea where to find drag index or OAT, but i read plane was at 70% max load, 60% fuel, no load at all. I guess 10% is gun ammo, 414kg.

Edit;

I removed the ammo, and went down to 50% fuel, and tested at 10000 feet, only mach 0.57. It should be 0.75 both at sea level and max height.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Buzpilot

[effte]

Drag index and performance docs for the A model.

[Smokin Hole]

I fly big jets for a living. In addition to that I've flown dozens of small types, including a few aerobatic. I still think that the Su25 is the most authentic feeling flight model of any jet simulator. DCSW is not far behind. Actually, its not that the A-10 feels less authentic than the Su25, just less fun. It reminds me of a Cessna Citation (also a straight-wing jet): Extremely easy to fly and extremely dull.

[636_Castle]

I think the A-10 is a blast to fly, and it feels very realistic to me. Not speaking from actual A-10 hours and comparing it to the real thing, but it just feels like you're flying a real aircraft. It's FAR from dull. Comparing the Su-25 to the A-10 in terms of maneuverability and flight characteristics is...well...not the best comparison to say the least. The A-10 is far superior and was designed to be a stable attacking airfoil, and includes a stability augmentation system.

 

It had some faults in the beta, but since the release version, DCSW still has some of the most dynamic and best feeling flight controls I've handled in 10+ years of simming. You can really kick the pedals in different ways, use a burst of speedbrake during rolls to increase roll rate, and fight the stick to get the maximum performance possible out of your jet. Especially when you're limping an injured hog back to the base...that REALLY puts your stick and rudder skills to the test.

Edited March 8, 2011 by 636_Castle

[WynnTTr]

I fly big jets for a living. In addition to that I've flown dozens of small types, including a few aerobatic. I still think that the Su25 is the most authentic feeling flight model of any jet simulator. DCSW is not far behind. Actually, its not that the A-10 feels less authentic than the Su25, just less fun. It reminds me of a Cessna Citation (also a straight-wing jet): Extremely easy to fly and extremely dull.

Seeing as ED developed trainers of the C for the military, I'd say they've got the credentials to back up their FM.

 

Modern military aircraft are designed to be easy to fly - particularly single seat ones. The pilot has enough on his plate than worrying about handling an erratic plane.

Besides, you're talking about making an aircraft stable enough to fire the GAU8 on the move - just trying to accommodate that would make anything easy to fly.

It's not as nimble as a fast mover but that's a different aspect altogether. After years of F4 I'd say the F-16 is pretty easy too. From what I've read other military aircraft are relatively easy to fly as well, like the AH64.

[sobek]

Seeing as ED developed trainers of the C for the military, I'd say they've got the credentials to back up their FM.

 

The military got a systems trainer, they didn't care much for flight model.

 

That said, ED had SMEs involved in the dev process and they are very open to feedback, so i guess it is as good as possible without going medieval on your hardware. I've certainly never flown any sim that displays all the adverse control responses as believable as DCSW does.

[Smokin Hole]

It's FAR from dull...

 

Good post. Dull isn't bad. Dull means predictable and stable. The A-10 was designed to be both because it needed to be the most accurate gun platform possible. But if your goal isn't to kill people and break things but just to fly then there are lot's of planes and helicopters out there I'd much rather strap on.

[Conure]

Definitely has one of the best feeling flight models of any game I've played. Can we call this a game? I just spent two hours trying to make my radios work...That's not a game...

[Ninjaofdoom]

Is it normal that the A10 has alot less elevator control to dive than climb, or is my X52pro somehow detecting all wrong?

 

Other than its VERY stall-happy nature, the 'hog is a blast to fly around in :)