I think there was more to it than just the slow throttle response but it’s been too long for me to actually remember the specfics, however keeping on speed AoA with the throttle near idle is almost impossible anyway iirc
Edit: just checked the manual and it’s really just the throttle response but you can safely land it at really high speeds (depending on weight of course) anything below 320km/h IAS is fine for a normal landing, IIRC a light MiG is usally around 270-290km/h on touchdown. In an emergency even 350km/h is fine.
Yep, that’s the number they mention in the landing tutorial.
The speed brakes come out the bottom of the fuselage so I thought that was a “no no”. I tend to “pump” the air brakes if I get going too fast, but not keep them out all the time. I’ve found that if you can get a good start wrt AOA, it works out; if not then it can be a soup sandwich.
I will also say the F/A-18. It’s not done, but it’s done enough to really get into it, unlike the F-16.
Unlike the F-14, you have plenty to do in A2G as well as A2A, and the backseat/frontseat/Jester thing is another level to learn, even though you’ve basically got only 3 weapons since A2G is so rare.
The big thing for me about the Hornet is they STILL don’t have the jammer ready. Not enough chaff for all the SAMs that get launched at me! Yet still I’ve probably spent more time in the Hornet than in every other plane combined since its release.
Yeah all these fighter jocks will push for sleek fast birds. But that’s stuff for boys.
You want the real thing? Fly SEAD missions riding the Huey with only door mounted M-60!
That’s how real men play! XD
(of course I’m joking but still, flying the Choppa is SO GOOD!)
Technically, you are not supposed to fly into a high SAM threat environment…it is contrary to tactical and operational doctrine… you could get in trouble with your Skipper…just say’n
I think the answer depends on what you want to do. Air-ground? A-10, AV-8, AJS-37. Air-air? F-14, F/A-18, F-16. Rotary wing? Ka-50. Everything has a level of complexity to it and I wouldn’t say one is any easier than another, just different.
Something like the F-5 isn’t less complex, just different. No CCIP, heaters only, so you have to use it differently than an F/A-18. By contrast, the F-14 brings massive power to the table, but you also have to manage Chester if you’re alone, and it’s definitely not an aircraft that flies itself.
By and large, if there’s one you find yourself most interested in, whether it’s the F-14 or the F-5, the JF-17 or the Ka-50, the MiG-19 or the F-86, it’s better to get that interesting one and learn it. It becomes much easier to commit to something you like rather than something you don’t.
Another vote for the Hornet, not only because of what has been previously said, but also because it’s interface is very logical. The startup process can be trimmed down pretty well to the basics, and the ordinance delivery can be as simple as dumb bombs or as complex as the Warthog. Not to mention mastering carrier ops is hugely rewarding.
I’m currently learning the Viper and while it has a long way to go to reach the finish line, you don’t feel overwhelmed. By the time you’ve learned everything that’s working, ED will add a bit more. I’ve been dabbling with Falcon BMS concurrently, and after taking a look at all of the material there is to learn, I’ll admit that it is liking drinking from a fire hose. The body of work that makes up BMS is expansive. Still the sexiest jet in my opinion.
I used to say that the Mirage makes a great gateway because the systems, while complex, are mostly set and forget, the HUD is great, and the autopilot lets you do anything you want while you’re playing with the black boxes.
However, the JF-17 is also a highly capable A/A and A/G gateway module, and the avionics are both capable and intuitive (more intuitive than the hornet). Don’t worry about it being a “red” aircraft; the avionics are a cross between the F-16 and COTS (civil) solutions. I would venture to say that you would feel at home in the glass cockpit given your time in civil aviation.
I went from the F15 to the Hornet thinking it would be just a slight step up in difficulty. Boy I was wrong. It transformed DCS for me. The full systems modelling make the experience incredibly rewarding for even the simplest of missions. Getting the jet ready from cold and dark, using its radar and weapons, until one day you can tackle a campaigns such as eastern friendship by yourself feels incredible.
Carrier ops are a great way to do some arcady quick missions (just some touch and go’s and pattern work) that never get boring.
The fly by wire makes it easy to focus on strategy (the hardest part of combat flying anyway) and CCIP bombing is a little easier (people say so… I suck at it).
I can’t recommend it enough. Since you started in the F15, it probably means you prefer current era eastern aircraft(that was the case for me anyways), so the F18 would be the logical choice. Just say goodbye to all the eagle’s acceleration. The bug is sluggish in comparison.
I know people that fly numerous planes in DCS including the A-10 and Ka-50 using a stick with one hat and like 4 buttons. They just use the keyboard with their other hand the whole time.
That said, HOTAS makes it quicker to get up to speed, once you map and remember where all the mappings are. I’ve got an X56, I think it’s fine, it was relatively cheap.
I was actually very surprised about its precision.
Hard to beat for that price. I have only the stick but another family member has the stick and throttle and I have flown a few planes with it. Works fine.
Actually, I got that stick to help with the Viggen [insert “It didn’t help” joke here]- the whole tigger covering the switch thing - the top row of three buttons across is also helpful for the Viggen AP functions.
I’m thinking of trying it with the Hip instead of the X-52 stick (but keep the throttle as the collective).
