Doesn't A-10C feel more flight capable in real life?

not common, but has been utilized as recently as OIF apparently

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1958983&postcount=11

Extremely rare and I bet his other pylons are barren.. Very mission specific.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Extremely rare and I bet his other pylons are barren.. Very mission specific.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

you can see mk82 bombs in centerlines, so its not running bare.

 

Its authorized store loadout via manual and has been employed in the real world, even if its not common.

 

Ultimately point being it can, as itsIts not a fantasy loading like say Lau88's and triple mavericks on the F16C block 50:music_whistling:

you can see mk82 bombs in centerlines, so its not running bare.

 

Its authorized store loadout via manual and has been employed in the real world, even if its not common.

 

Ultimately point being it can, as itsIts not a fantasy loading like say Lau88's and triple mavericks on the F16C block 50:music_whistling:

Centerline is not as affected as pylons on the wings. My comments are accurate and my point is weight on wings causes stress fractures which equates to $. The practice is rare..

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Centerline is not as affected as pylons on the wings. My comments are accurate and my point is weight on wings causes stress fractures which equates to $. The practice is rare..

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

As are my comments. That same logic applies to any aircraft. But hey this is digital combat simulator not digital logistics and maintainer simulator.

 

Anything that is valid based on documentation and authorized loading here flies ( pun intended) irregardless what is less common or not.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Kev2go

As are my comments. That same logic applies to any aircraft. But hey this is digital combat simulator not digital logistics and maintainer simulator.

 

Anything that is valid based on documentation and authorized loading here files ( pun intended) irregardless what is less common or not

 

Both of you guys have ofcourse great points but I have to go with this one that overrides the other one in the end for a computer simulator. DCS simulator should stick by the book and not by what "flair" some specific US military agency in a specific US economic condition under a specific management over a specific US president decides to sprinkle on top.

 

HOWEVER unfortunately this clashes with the rule of "simulator simulates reality" and they use only 2 mavericks most of the time ... so if you take a pair of binoculars and be an indepentend observer you see 2 mavericks on each side, you don't see the papers.

 

So I guess it's debatable what default loadout should be but I think the whole thing should be checked and fixed for any artificial limitations that might have been inadvertenly built into DCS, so just because it's uncommon it shouldn't be disallowed in ME to load the airplane to the fullest, another rule should be "if it's possible in reality, then it should be in the simulator". So if it's possible in reality to load tripple mavericks on the pre-tip hardpoint of a wing then so be it :p and let the server admin decide these rules.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Worrazen

It's funny how everyone pretty much says the exact same thing, but in a way that seems to oppose other people's position. :music_whistling: ;)

 

The ME and the arming menu allows for all options, so everything is fine there. What we load, or don't load, is up to us as players and mission designers. Personally, I'll typically go with a single Mav per wing (if I load any Mavs at all), because of weight and drag and mostly because that's how the jet was mostly used in the past 20 years.

 

If the scenario was "Destroy as many of those tanks as you can, or we'll be overrun and the heinous enemy destroys our culture and civilization", then I'd probably pack all 6 anyway. :smartass:

I managed to sum up this thread in one picture

 

:megalol::doh:

I managed to sum up this thread in one picture

 

 

:thumbup::megalol:

:D

You sir, won the internet for today O7

Pretty much. Well done :p

It feels like its difficult to climb even with a Nox Vidmate VLC clean aircraft, the plane starts to spin out if there are too many G's pulled. I feel like it should be easily capable of 400-550 knots and easily able to climb.

 

''Feelings''

One thing that shouldn't be mentioned in a technical discussion if you don't want to be laughed out of the room.

''Feelings''

One thing that shouldn't be mentioned in a technical discussion if you don't want to be laughed out of the room.

Depends who's reporting the wrong 'feel'. If it's e.g. an actual A-10 pilot like Habu23, I doubt that he is being laughed out of the room (and it didn't happen)

I managed to sum up this thread in one picture

 

 

Or perhaps realize that not all people are mathematically illiterate, and thus know how to comprehend em charts from performance manuals, and thus have a basis to make claims

 

 

In other cases have actual a10 pilots speak out like habu.

 

 

All in all this thread aint nothing new. This must he like the half dozenth time a thread like this has been started.

Edited August 27, 2019 by Kev2go

It is. I know several pilots that also play DCS that have contacted me to help with their NASA applications (Retired as OPF manager for Atlantis). She is too slow, not tight enough in turns, ie engines are underpowered by at least 20%, avenger isn't as accurate as in combat (air to ground), but weapons and some other systems are simplified to make your actions faster that kind of makes up for it.

She is too slow, not tight enough in turns, ie engines are underpowered by at least 20%.

I don't think that the airplane is underpowered since these complaints are apparently only valid for the A-10 with external loads. In clean config, speed, climb rate etc. are matching the -1 performance data.

It's apparently the DI that's off.

Edited August 27, 2019 by bbrz

I mean then the question is why do we have multiple hawg pilots saying its underpowered and not as stable and tight turning as it should be.

pylons might have similar drag index issues as weapons

pylons might have similar drag index issues as weapons

 

Apparently Pylons in DCS are totally not taken into account as far as drag and weight...:music_whistling:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247552

I mean then the question is why do we have multiple hawg pilots saying its underpowered and not as stable and tight turning as it should be.

 

There was a thread, years ago, where discussion about TIT temperature and engine thrust went deep. Documents were posted, a RL crew chief was banned, thread deleted I believe.

I can sum it up to this:

 

ED used the values of an uninstalled engine. When the engine is installed in the aircraft, parameters change a bit, in this case the max TIT of the installed TF-34 are higher.

How that reflects on total thrust was estimated to be a difference of a few single digit %.

 

Anyhow, all those who have RL A-10 experience have reported some discrepancies regarding engine thrust.

 

About maneuverability, IMO this has a lot to do with us having short sticks that are not very precise. I can hold the A-10 in the chop-tone and keep turning if I am *very* precise with the stick, but it's hard. A stick extention might help.

pylons might have similar drag index issues as weapons

There was an issue recently fixed with the drag index (or maybe the weight? i can't remember) for the triple rocket pods mount for the A-10C reported and fixed right away.

ED needs data to fix stuff.

The said issue was fixed after someone filed a proper report like

"Object X has the issue Y because by performing test Z the result differers from manual ABC. By further investigation the issue appears to be that the object X has the value $whatever wrong and should be $whateverRight".

People just complaining "The A10 feels XYZ instead of ABC" isn't going to cut it, just as it isn't going to cut it the usual "there's probably this or that wrong".

What are the chances we can have some fun/ learn with this topic?

Can someone set up a lobby/room with both the FC 3 A-10A and the A-10C modules.

A room where we compare results, computer specs, and controller settings.

We could compare different loadouts, fuel levels, weather conditions, altitudes, and the 'feeling' factor.

A room where we bring anything and everything including performance charts, video footage, and testimonial inputs from actual pilots.

We could invite another airframe/aircraft to compare performance factors.

To keep this post short. lets work together and resolve this issue.

What are the chances we can have some fun/ learn with this topic?

Can someone set up a lobby/room with both the FC 3 A-10A and the A-10C modules.

A room where we compare results, computer specs, and controller settings.

We could compare different loadouts, fuel levels, weather conditions, altitudes, and the 'feeling' factor.

A room where we bring anything and everything including performance charts, video footage, and testimonial inputs from actual pilots.

We could invite another airframe/aircraft to compare performance factors.

To keep this post short. lets work together and resolve this issue.

 

You could start a discord for it. That is a perfect platform for something like that.

Or perhaps realize that not all people are mathematically illiterate, and thus know how to comprehend em charts from performance manuals, and thus have a basis to make claims

 

 

In other cases have actual a10 pilots speak out like habu.

 

 

All in all this thread aint nothing new. This must he like the half dozenth time a thread like this has been started.

 

Two things:

 

1) Do you realize that I made a joke and that the specific loadout I used is a very important part of said joke?

 

2) Do you realize that I made a joke?

 

Also please dont suggest that I am "mathematically illiterate" just because you did not get the joke I made.