F-5E update (Wags AMA)

In real F-5 landings, the plane is kept on rear wheels for a while for aero-braking. In DCS, no matter how soft you land, how fast or how slow you land, after the main gear touches, the nose wheel "wants to" reach to ground immediately. I am not sure about the FM, but this needs a fix.

 

Currently after the touchdown you need to add some pitch with your stick to keep the nose up, and usually this leads to small oscillation.

I have flown F-5E with 3 different joystick: X-52, FFB Sidewinder (moded) and TM Cougar HOTAS

In the country where I live, we have slang to refer the way you are feeling your aircraft, and it's very easy to understand this feeling in some maneuvers like takeoff and landing: ass-gauge!

With the X-52 I have experienced the lowest ass-gauge. I has been virtually impossible for me to keep the nose up after touchdown.

With the Cougar I have been able to touchdown and roll with nose up for a couple of seconds.

With my moded FBB Sidewinder.... a joy to fly! you can almost feel you aircraft. Same results on F-14, BF-109, C-101. With this joystick I have gotten the best results on landing and rolling out with nose gear up... and of course performing other maneouvers too. If you have the chance to fly with a FFB Sidewinder, give it a try!

Salute

Gavilan

Apart from other upgrades, one that is really necessary to be updated is the central line that separates the aircraft in two sides.

 

This issue has been Reported.

ass-gauge!

Так ты русский? Because that is where I heard the expression - and it's very apt IMO, BTW - and I've never heard it elsewhere.

Everyone seems to want an N variant meanwhile, I'm over here wanting a G :smilewink:

Everyone seems to want an N variant meanwhile, I'm over here wanting a G :smilewink:

Wiki says that Swiss Tigers carry the AN/APG-69 radar that should be able to guide the Sparrow.

Wiki says that Swiss Tigers carry the AN/APG-69 radar that should be able to guide the Sparrow.

The G was the F-20 tiger shark

The G was the F-20 tiger shark

I know that, and the Tigershark was build from ground up to carry and use the Sparrow, my entry was about the Swiss F-5, as I don't know If they were capable or not of deploying the Sparrow.

Everyone seems to want an N variant meanwhile, I'm over here wanting a G :smilewink:

Don’t know why people want an N when it doesn’t have guns

Don’t know why people want an N when it doesn’t have guns

Guess it could be a Swiss F5E. Then you have what amounts to an early F5N but with guns operated by nation outside the us. :D

That being said the F5N manual lists the Aim9M as authoroized armament ( im wondering though if the Swiss F5E's ever flew with 9M's or only P5's). That would be a step up from the Aim9P5. Although its true the seeker head is derived from Aim9M, the AIm9P5 is still inferior due to older rocket propellant and the older aerodynamics of the Aim9P body.

Don’t know why people want an N when it doesn’t have guns

I'm an F-5N advocate because it would be minimal work compared to a significantly less advanced (F-5A) or more advanced (F-5EM) Tiger variant. Much as I love this jet and want to see greater lethality, I don't think ED could justify a massive revision when there are so many other aircraft people want to see.

That would be nice.

 

I'd like for them to rip out the ALR-87 for an "older" cold war era F5E... Rather than the "swiss model" or give us INS like the swiss model has etc.

its not about older...

ALR 87 is essentially a export version of AN/ALR46 ( specifically the ALR46 V4 i think)

ALR46 already debuted within the1970s, and was retrofitted into F4E phantoms in the late 70's. as well as being the system A10A's would have also had at their initial introduction.

It wouldn't be in use on a US operated F5E, but rather if they did decide use a RWR it would have been the actual domestic built AN/ALR 46 system not its export derivative.

However the thing is the USA didn't use any form of RWR or countermeasures on their aggressor tigers be it USAF or USN flown F5E's. The only exception to this was the USN F5N's because the USN literally bought back swiss modified F5E in the early 2000's that had those exact features, although they decided to remove M39 cannons from the air frame.

You cant really go earlier than 1979 with the current F5E iteration , at least not unless you expect ED to also do 3d model and flight model changes which would require more work. than just adjusting a few of the avionics systems. 1979 and later F5E's were produced with larger wing lex, and auto flaps system.

This is the sort of late aerodynamically changed F5E present in DCS already as opposed to the original F5E productions from pre 1979.

Purely put the AN/ALR 87 and AN/ALE40 CM set should be removed for a USAF agressor version purely because they never operated them with said avionics. Now whilst im sure this will give a more early cold experience feel you must realize that from a historical standpoint many other aircraft in US service that were actual combat active duty service aircraft already had some form of RWR as standard feature by that time the very first F5E went into production in the early 70s.

BUt at the same time to retain F5E with ALR87 and ALE40 isnt accurate either as even if were a Swiss F5E, its not fully accurate representation of that version as for eg a Swiss F5E as you acknowledge would need to have INS as well as a digital radio set.

Going back to my initial simple response why i believe with a future F5E remodel it would be most ideal to split into two versions as was analogous of ED P51D remodel to P51D25 and D30 for historical accuracy. ( and in this case not to upset initial F5 buyers with a "downgraded" USAF F5E)

I would be glad for the radar upgrade how it gets drawn on screen, and then improve textures etc.

And then get a maps where it would be flying more...

I would be glad for the radar upgrade how it gets drawn on screen, and then improve textures etc.

 

And then get a maps where it would be flying more...

This is minimally what I would like to see too. A Vietnam map would be great but that's a different discussion. The radar needs work and so does the rwr. I think those two systems is something that everyone is agreeing on. Hopefully, some updated textures come along with it.

This is minimally what I would like to see too. A Vietnam map would be great but that's a different discussion. The radar needs work and so does the rwr. I think those two systems is something that everyone is agreeing on. Hopefully, some updated textures come along with it.

And hopefully a fix for the still-bugged attitude gyro that drifts after like one VFR pattern.

Everyone seems to want an N variant meanwhile, I'm over here wanting a G :smilewink:

Actually I'm OK with both. But the G variant was just a prototype and there is not much credible info on it.

I am all for that update on F-5 To EM or N variant.

And hopefully a fix for the still-bugged attitude gyro that drifts after like one VFR pattern.

I always wonder why ED has such a hard time with attitude indicators. They drift and tumble in quite a few modules including the damn F-16! Attitude indicators should be a solved problem since they’ve functioned just fine in flight simulators going back to the early 1980’s.

I would love to see an updated F-5.

Best case for me would be twin-seated version. Would also be nice to get the Photo-/Recon-nose and do some recon with this totally underrated bird.

Of course a refueling probe and the option for two Mavs or 2 more Sidewinders on pylons would be awesome.

 

Unfortunately the AGM-78 got rejected already. That one would be quite nice, also for the Huey.

And quite easy do make.

Aww, what a shame.

To ED, I'd throw more money at you for an ARM equipped F-5.

I would like to second the motion for updating the flight model with better modeling of buffet. In this airplane you should be able to discern the difference between the tickle, light buffet, moderate buffet, and heavy buffet. It would help immensely.

I’m inclined to believe this is due to the DCS F-5 flight model being more “draggy” than the real thing. Mover, in his FAM flight video, noted during the break turn when he got the gear horn that “you wouldn’t slow down that fast.” He suggests that it may be due to the increased induced drag (compared to the T-38A he flies IRL) from the LEXs and slats, but that still doesn’t really explain the whole story since you can see F-5s in various YouTube videos aerobraking for nearly half their landing rollouts.

Watching videos of the F-5, and just flying the sim, it's obvious the F-5 in DCS has too much drag.

Just performing a level max power acceleration shows it's under-performing. The second you pull some AoA and it just bleeds all its speed.

The drag profile needs some serious work.

Also the EGT at start-up is wrong. I get hot-starts every single time.

Aerobreaking during landing rollouts is not a good way to tell whether something is too draggy or not imo because ground interaction in DCS has always been weird.

Aerobreaking during landing rollouts is not a good way to tell whether something is too draggy or not imo because ground interaction in DCS has always been weird.

The test was in the air, not on the ground. :)

I do agree about the drag issues. But it is really a problem that nearly all modules are facing. Try go high AoA on the A-10C. The Viper should really ”carve” through the air in a high G turn. Pull back throttle a little bit on the Hornet is like hitting a brick wall etc. (in an early Hornet video with Mover he is clearly surprised by the slow speed/draginess), missiles that bleeds a lot of energy, and a lot of drag with stores etc.

I do agree about the drag issues. But it is really a problem that nearly all modules are facing. Try go high AoA on the A-10C. The Viper should really ”carve” through the air in a high G turn. Pull back throttle a little bit on the Hornet is like hitting a brick wall etc. (in an early Hornet video with Mover he is clearly surprised by the slow speed/draginess), missiles that bleeds a lot of energy, and a lot of drag with stores etc.

I can't say if drag calculation is done by the party developer or by an ED'S core library, but maybe someone has simply forgotten that only half of density must be taken for calculation of the drag formula or the induced drag is calculated too high (just saying ...) :smartass:

This at least would explain why the Viggen feels so heavy and draggy when flying at low speeds.

will not too much drag be your personal perception?

will not too much drag be your personal perception?

 

 

No. Just try gliding it. Much steeper descent angle than it should have.

The problem with most sims is people think aircraft slow quickly. They don't.