Took the plunge.

Got the AV-8B. Like it! A lot. Excellent performance. 78-98 in Nevada at 2560X1440 with HIGH settings. 65-73 ish in Caucauss. Subtract 5-7 FPS when flying over thick forest.

Normandy perofrmance is somewhere inbetween Caucauss and Nevada. Don't have Person Gulf, yet.

Any advice for AB-8B newbie?

70%-75% throttle is all you need most times. The Pegasus engine is a thirsty beast and will drain 2000lbs (max Vertical Take Off weight is around 21,000lbs) of fuel in about 10 minutes of CAS work.

The Sidearm missiles are fun and you can kill radar AAA with it, but it's really a last ditch option. They are hard to lock up, and enemy will often turn off their radar until after you pass over head

Here in the UK (when we had them), they'd fly around 'Mach Loop' at about ~420 kts, >500kts and you're set for bombing, there are performance tables on cruise and such though, which makes for great bedtime reading.

From an actual pilot on STO with his GR designated can; full throttle at 10 to 0° nozzle, see ASI come alive, wait for 95 indicated and throw the nozzles back to 55° and you'll jump into the air, weight being within limits (see tables, NATOPS)

Oh, checklists; stick to them, this can bites. NWS engaged for all rolling takeoffs, else you'll get up-close and personal with the scenery.

great buy! you'll love it!

Definitely a must have module. Regards to how a short takeoff should look like. Have a look at this video from 1h:39min.

Some awsome visitors in my home town :thumbup: Don't mind the 104 :music_whistling:

Check out these videos. This fella does a good job.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmMuAwcwIi6N9gnSa81fUUg

The whole interview is worth a watch, but check out his comments here (hell, the whole video) at these time-stamps;

• 31:25
  
• 35:58
  

This is also a good one if you like nerding completely like i do :)

WOW! Thank you. I'vee been flyin and dyin in DCS and FC3 precurso since 2005. I have KA-50 BS2, A-10C, Mig-21, F-5E, FC3, UH-1H, NTTR, Normany, and WWII Assets, and just got AV-8B and M2K at the same time becouse of sale.

They say learning Harrier is unlearning previous fixed wing. Already crashed a few times, without fatality, all on landing. Perhaps I did not put it into VSTOL mode correctly, maybe I did not use water injection correctly. Or something else. My VV gets too high despite at full power, and nozzles in vertical, gear down. Down in very low, last 100 feet or so, aircraft destabilizes,and I hit terra-firma with excessive VV, gear snapps, wing snaps, engine catches on fire, but virtual USMC aviator (there are no pilots in Corps), remains alive.

This is expected, and if I greased AV-8B NA on first flight, I would be disappointed in it.

USMC AV-8B veterans say that 30-40% of training time at OCU, is spent in transitional VSTOL regime. But of a bunch post apocalyptic alien invasion cave-men can learn to fly it with a simulator, in Battlefield Earth (2000), so can I!

As Indiana Jones said, "Fly yes! Land No!"

I have a lot of time in the Huey and other choppers, hover flight in the Harrier came pretty naturally to me. Would you want to meet in a server sometime tomorrow and I can try to guide you through VSTOL stuff? I have discord.

[snip]They say learning Harrier is unlearning previous fixed wing. Already crashed a few times, without fatality, all on landing. Perhaps I did not put it into VSTOL mode correctly, maybe I did not use water injection correctly. Or something else. My VV gets too high despite at full power, and nozzles in vertical, gear down. Down in very low, last 100 feet or so, aircraft destabilizes,and I hit terra-firma with excessive VV, gear snapps, wing snaps, engine catches on fire[snip]

The Harrier will not always be able to takeoff or land vertically or short, it'll be down to weight and engine performance figures for the day, water content etc, and a conventional takeoff or landing may be required, like so;

Check the NATOPS sections on takeoff and landing types, there are quite a few, each with its own procedure. Harriers also don't like crosswinds, plus recall that critical phase of flight between 30 and 90 knots, check for slip with the vane, slip is bad.

Going out on a limb here, but what you are describing, at around 100 feet destabilizing, sounds like you are just entering the ground effect height. Your nozzles get more effective as you get lower because the LIDS activates, trapping a cushion of air underneath you like a hovercraft almost. You just have to anticipate it and throttle down as you get lower.

Indeed, the Pegasus is powerful, really powerful, but if your descent rate is already too high, or you're carrying too much weight, or the ambient temperature is hobbling the performance of the Pegasus, or you're out of water, or all of the above; it won't be enough to halt your descent.

I love the Harrier, after flying it, I decided to restructure my pit to a Harrier-like configuration and primary in it. It's my precious *—*

I love the Harrier, after flying it, I decided to restructure my pit to a Harrier-like configuration and primary in it. It's my precious *—*

We're just missing a physical Harrier throttle quadrant, wouldn't that be a nice thing, though maybe niche.

Thank you for the offer. Perhaps some time. I don't want to waste anyone's time, untill I get out of the noob phase with AV-8BNA. Plus, I am not certain I dig DCS in network mode. For AA and AG, formation flying, its great. But something happens to DCS when landing in network mode. It looks wrong, and feels weird. The aircraft control lacks fine refinement, gear sinks into deck and ground. AG CCIP is less precise, same for cannons. During flight, there would be a snap update of few feet or less. Like the whole aircraft attitude and position , hickups.

Soviets , in their day, made their cockpits very similar. Mig-29, SU-27, Mig-23, Mig-27 had cokpit layouts and avionics in a very similar configuration. A pilot could go from -29 to SU-25 with minimal OCU. Look at Soviet Gen 1 and Gen 2 tactical jets, mig-15, SU-7, SU-9, Mig-17, Mig-19. The cockpits looked identical. I was shocked, but not too much, when RT showed Putin sitting in a TU-22M cockpit, in pilot command seat. The instrument panel, stick and throttle, looked so similar to SU-27 in DCS.

Can't be said for Western designs. F-16 pit is different from F-15. AV-8 is very different form others pit. May have some similarity to F/A-18 and A-4. F-4 pilot seat is different from A-10. I think they only commonality is left to right workflow for start up and reverse for shut-down.

Electrics ON,comms ON APU ON, Fuel ON, start engines, APU OFF, generators ON, avionics ON, sensors ON, check xmas tree for faults, ejection UNSAFED, canopy close, taxi.

THe emergency procedures are also different, somewhat for different types. This is what worries me most. Some emergencies should be muscle memory.

Compare F-16C Block 30pit procedures, to Jaguar, and Tornado. Very different. In DCS, compare M2K to AV-8B to F-5E, to F-15C(assuming a future full PFM and ASM with clickable pit).

On X-56 I set one of the circle nobs on throttle as nozzle rotation knob, at it seems OK.

F-104. Rocket shaped coffin with a man in it! Womp! Womp!

Kelly Johnson was a super-genious of aerospace. So were his designs. Created by super-geniuses, and requiring super talented genius pilots to fly them safely.

As Col Rich Graham, a former 9th Reconnaissance Wing CO, and SR-71 pilot, said. In normal planes, pilots's mission and task was the whatever mission he had to do. Fight air-air, drop bombs, etc.. But not in SR-71. With SR-71 a pilot spent 100% of his time, flying the aircraft. The mission came second.

F-104, while not as extreme as SR, still required 90% of pilo's attention just to fly it safely. Just like SR it produced super proud orange bag (high altitude flight suit with high vis orange) wearing crews. Unlike SR, F-104 produced dead crews by dozen. In USAF, CFAF, and Luftwaffe.

After 104 USAF demanded safer handling supersonic designs. Its weird and wacky, but after mid 1960's, USAF designs did not feature high mach. Except SR-71. Mach numbers have remained pretty constant, if not slower. F-101( remember her), F-4 had 2.2 mach top speed at altitude clean. F-15 is mach 2.2 on a good day. F-16 , when clean in afterburner, at altitude, on a good day, is lucky to break Mach 2. Even though mach 2.2 was design goal. On operation missions, without AB, F-16C and F-15E are subsonic. Maybe 400 to 500 knots top at low altitude, on fence penetration, and approach to target.

F/A-22A while it has better performance above 45K on standard day, then F-15C, and SU-27/30/33/35, including MKI. It is not faster, and may in fact be a little slower then SU at 35K but better above 40K. Point is that speed performance has stabilized at Mach 2.2.

MIG-31 cannot break 2.4 with weapon load. MIG-25RB has never hit anything above 2.8. -25 would need new engines if it went above M2.5. Russian claim that both are Mach 3 designs are a little 'aspirational'. However MIG-31 can climb to a really high ceiling. It is a natural air breathing Russian platform for ASAT, anti-missile, and anti-HIVAL (i.e. AWACS and VC platforms) missions. F-15A/B specially configured to carry ASAT missile in late 1970's and early 1980's tests, zoom climbed to about 55K-60K ASL for release. F-15E configured for same ASAT mission, as proposed by Boeing, is also claims (unclassified) 55K as operational release .

Both had no radar, no gun, and lightened airframe with max G limitation, and reduced fuel. Basically a stripped 'streak' Eagle airframe with single center pylon for ASAT missile.

Sorry for getting off the subject. But F-104 is a trigger for me.