Stop using Ground Speed as a reference

For aircraft, KIAS is the standard. Using ground speed just leads to many headaches and slow tankers and support aircraft.

So please ditch it for aircraft.

Stop using Ground Speed as a reference

It totally depends on what you are trying to calculate. IAS is useful for knowing how close you are to stall speed, and pilots use that to figure their place in the envelope. Ground speed is more useful for a flight plan with TOT implications, or for the duration component of fuel management. True airspeed is not all that useful on its own, but it is an important component of the wind triangle (helping you to determine crab angle and ground speed.

For example, as a strike platform, the Viggen has as much use for ground speed as indicated airspeed. That said, If you’re referring to things like tanker tracks, TAS may be more useful than GS and possibly even IAS.

For example, as a strike platform, the Viggen has as much use for ground speed as indicated airspeed. That said, If you’re referring to things like tanker tracks, TAS may be more useful than GS and possibly even IAS.

I didnt realize the ToT aspect, but you're correct.

And I was meaning more for the AI tankers/AWACs. Thanks!!

Having tried to command a tanker to hold a constant airspeed with the ME, I totally concur with the spirit of this thread.

Ain't the ground speed just a override of the limitation of mission editor to get the ground units and air units move with same logic?

Anyways you just want to get scripted a AI to travel from waypoint A to waypoint B in given time, so you need given speed for it, regardless what is the wind speed or direction for air unit!

That way it is as well easier to design missions like when you check a SAM site to have specific aiming time for a air target passing the engagement zone in given length, regardless what is the air speed?

It is as well logical way to think as what are the stall speeds etc regardless is there a wind or not, but then you need to calculate that in anyways but you get to do that only if you add a wind!

Normal flight planning often references absolute time which requires absolute speed. But other flight planning is not time-specific. This is useful for legs after variable time events or simply to dictate a certain speed for economy or other reasons. But ignoring all that...

What should happen is the tanking task is separate from the flight plan. The tanking task is a cycle from no receivers to rejoin to contact and then back to no receivers. At the end of task the flight plan is resumed.

I give example:

Flight plan perhaps using absolute time and speed 500 knots GS at 20,000'.

Begin tanker task by entering a holding pattern at M0.6 25,000'.

Receives request for rejoin and descends to 15,000' at 260 KIAS onto a refueling pattern for contact.

After contact returns to holding pattern M0.6 25,000'

After station time is complete returns to flight plan

The goal of the flight plan to arrive at the waypoint at the correct time. The goal of the holding pattern is to stay in a small area and burn little fuel by being at an economical altitude and speed for the tanker. The goal of the refueling track is to pair with the receiver and adopt parameters suitable for that specific type of receiver. The refueling track is probably much bigger than the waiting hold.

Contact parameters are different than holding parameters and also vary based on receiver. If an F-15 calls up the tanker the tanker adopts a different speed and even altitude profile than when an A-10 does it. A tanker is smart and knows to change itself for contact. A tanker is also smart enough to not sit around at inefficient economy parameters when no one wants gas.

In DCS you notice that the orbit task has an altitude that is separate from the flight plan waypoint altitude. The contact track is also based on the following flight plan waypoint so hold track and contact track can be different sizes. That's good.

What's not good is that DCS doesn't allow contact and hold speed values and speed references (GS vs IAS/M) to be different from each other and to be different depending on what type of airplane is asking for fuel.

Being a former tanker crewman, seeing one on the verge of stall in orbit, just kills me. I know it can be better.

Unless one cheats with F10 or marker on kneeboard, of which I am guilty on both counts, ground is necessary for dead reckoning navigation. TAS, ground speed, and cockpit chronometer, are instruments that are used to navigate. A map also helps. A-10C, KA-50 have moving map display. A-10C hud has time to waypoint to keep you on speed. in RW , gnd spd is what is used, unless one has GPS. KIAS (knots indicated air speed) is necessary when flying. F-5E requires 400knots for ballistic computer to deliver AG weapons.

My opinion is that navigation in DCS is very easy. Too easy in fact. But sophisticated navigation procedures does require sophisticated weather and meteorology implementation. For a consumer sim, it would just suck away performance, and give developers headaches. Their time is better put into improving flight models, optimizing speed of existing features

Would be nice if we could set the ME so a certain leg can prioritise constant IAS (CAS for AI if they have no IAS defined) or time over waypoint.

or have couple of options, depending on what you need (GS, TAS, IAS, etc.)

From what I recall hearing from real fighter pilots (albeit for a different sim), flights are planned in GS. However, in that sim it was a little easier to use, as you set flightplan altitude to 0, set speed, then when you set your flight plan altitude the speed would automatically convert to IAS at altitude. Basically tricking the system.

I don't think it's possible to trick the ME like that, so you basically have to whip out a flight computer or something and convert speeds. It's also hard when there aren't any resources packaged with DCS that give recommended speeds for tanking.

A passive window that would output calculated TAS and IAS (Mach too why not) based on location of particular point in question, projected ME weather, and altitude would be very helpful.

AAR in particular is not a ground-referenced procedure. If the tanker contact track is oriented north-south and wind is out of the north it must have a different ground speed going upwind and downwind to maintain a constant IAS which is normally how it's done.

There's also the question of different receivers with different contact speeds which is impossible for mission maker to know in advance in all cases. When slow and fast receivers come and go the tanker must adjust contact speed dynamically based on his customer type. The mission maker usually has no business specifying contact speed at all; it should normally be "auto."

Computed CAS and mach number indications near the GS in the mission editor would help a lot to setup routes according to the aircraft type and mission profile.

F-5E requires 400knots for ballistic computer to deliver AG weapons.

Is there such thing equipping the F-5E ??