Hummingbird

Another good one:

A cool little interview with Mike Sutton regarding the EF and its DACT performance as he experienced it:

Great to hear Cobra! The S would truly be a dream come true (as is the F-4E). I can honestly say I haven't looked as much forward to a DCS module since the F-14 Godspeed on the project!

The lack of inertia I felt a lot in pitch last I tested it, so I'm hoping they will be looking at that as well.

Wait with any comparisons until the F-14's FM is also complete. As Fat Creason has said, adjustments are still needed. When both modules completely match their respective RL EM charts, they will feature a max STR within 0.2 deg/sec og each other, albeit at two very different speeds.

It's a combination of the increase in AoA the LERX permits, which in turn allows the use of the enlarged flaperons (applying TE flaps decreases critical AoA) for a sizeable increase in lift during landing without compromising over the nose visibility.

Yes, that would be from the ability to employ the slightly enlarged flaperons on landing.

Again you're interpreting things incorrectly. "“knife-fight in a phone box” turning capability" --->This refers to low speed high AoA one circle fighting, which is all the AMK kit is going to help with, not sustained turn rate. In short it's all about providing a higher nose pointing ability (i.e. higher AoA limit) at low speed, which apparently most operators of the EF don't find necessary as the EF maintains a general advantage in ITR & esp. STR over most other fighters. Also keep this in mind: The lower the wing loading, the lower the lift coefficient, and thus AoA, is needed in order to generate the necessary lift for a specific load factor -> this is the general principle the EF lives on. In other words the EF can generate the same ITR at a lower AoA than many other fighters.

You're basing that belief on your interpretation of a single article. The EF doesn't struggle below 10 kft, the F-16 & Rafale face the exact same "problem", i.e. all three got so much performance that down in the thicker air the squishy meatbag in the cockpit is the limiting factor, not the aircraft. In other words pilots in these three are going to find it extremely difficult and uncomfortable to fight each other below 10 kft, as all three aircraft will sustain 9 G's with ease down there. However as you go higher and the air gets thinner, and thus less G's can be sustained, that's when you start to see aircraft performance making a big difference.

Haven't tested the STR since the update, so can't comment on that. I did hear a higher AoA than before is now required for level flight though, which is curious.

A 1973 Ps chart for the slatted F-4E for comparison: As you can see the slatted F-4E achieves a higher STR at a ~2,000 lbs higher weight (e.g.: 5.3 G vs 4.9 G @ M 0.6 & 6.4 G vs 5.8 G @ M 0.7). And here VN charts for comparison of ITR at equal weight (dated 1969 & 1973) between an F-4E with slats and an F-4J without (hard wing F-4 stalls at ~25 units AoA, the slatted F-4 @ ~30 units):

Considering they all agree that its STR is higher than that of a clean F-16, and every F-16 pilot I've ever talked to says the Viper absolutely dominates over the Hornet in a rate fight, I think it's safe to say the Hornet is not going to be able to rate with the EF if performance is going to be remotely realistic. Remember:

I wouldn't take such articles at face value. We would need to see actual EM charts in order to make a fair comparison. I for one very much doubt the F/A-18 being able to match EF in STR. It would go against everything we hear from pilots flying these birds. The reason the F-16 is competitive to the EF down low probably comes down to the fact that both jets rather quickly reach their 9 G limit down in the thicker air, and as such dogfights down low are more about pilot endurance than a/c perf. Hence you have to be up in thinner air, where the sustainable G's are lower, in order to see a/c perf start making a deciding difference.

Ok, I'll provide one tomorrow then. Although I don't really see why it's necessary, considering it's there all the time and the devs will see it right away if they test it.

As the title says, the DCS Viper is currently unable to hit the negative 3 G that the real aircraft is capable of as pr. its performance manual. This is irrespective of load out, speed or altitude. Hence it's easily reproducable, and therefore not in need of a track.

To be fair the difference is still lower as the Cd0's are 0.199 & 0.239, not 0.175 & 0.240. The difference is 62.9%.

Based on the F1's specifications and layout, I expect performance roughly similar to that of the MiG-21Bis. It might turn slightly better, due to automatic LE slats and a less swept wing design (despite the higher W/L), whilst it does lack a bit in terms of power to weight when compared with the MiG, so the climbing performance might not be as great.

Just my 2 cents on the latest FM changes: First of all it's great to see the G-onset rate appearing spot on now, really feels nice. However, I did noticed a few odd things: 1. It's harder to be precise in terms of sustaining a certain G (for instance I couldn't make the G meter hit 8.1 or 8.6 G for some reason, no matter I smooth I tried to be it would always skip from 8 - 8.2 G, and from 8.5-8.7 G) 2. Related to the above, when easing slight off or adding slightly to pitch, the aircraft seems to jerk its way in pitch/G. i.e. it appears abit bumpy when trying to increase G gradually. 3. It appears you cannot achieve more than negative -1.7 G (should be able to hit -3 G)

Yeah whilst the G-onset definitely improved a lot, which is good, I noticed a few odd things: 1. It's harder to be precise in terms of sustaining a certain G (for instance I couldn't make the G meter hit 8.1 or 8.6 G for some reason, no matter I smooth I tried to be it would always skip from 8 - 8.2 G, and from 8.5-8.7 G) 2. Related to the above, when easing slight off or adding slightly to pitch, the aircraft seems to jerk its way in pitch/G. i.e. it appears abit bumpy when trying to increase G gradually. 3. It appears you cannot achieve more than negative -1.7 G (should be able to hit -3 G) Just my 2 cents since the update.

Considering the Eurofighter will outrate the F-16 (as pr. pilot testimony on here), I doubt the F/A-18C will be close in STR, let alone bleed rate. The EF is supposed to be a rate monster beyond even the F-16, and I think we'll see the F-16 start to mostly dominate over the F/A-18C now that it's FM has been corrected.

@IronMike & @Cobra847 Are there any plans for the F-4S, or are the F-4E & J the only ones you've officially decided on so far?

Yeah, I merely prefer the S because it could actually dogfight pretty well too if push came to shove

Personally I'm very happy that HB chose to model the F-4E first. It just makes a lot of sense based on capability, combat history and number of operators. That said I'd love to see a F-4S as well at some point, that to me is one of the coolest versions

Yes, my point is that the intention of equipping these devices was to increase maneuverability; which they also did, noticably so according to the available V-N and PS diagrams.

Yes, the manuals we've been looking at definitely show a clear advantage to the slatted block 50 over the hard wing block 35 in terms of both STR & ITR. That was also the purpose of the "agile eagle" program which introduced the slats after all, i.e. to enhance the maneuverability of the F-4.