2 hours ago, Chock said:

Let's be honest, you can't be that bothered about having a Concorde if you don't even know how to spell it!

Chock,

This could well be a typo of course. Something I am extremely familiar with due largely to my dyslexic typing fingers. 

Fair comment though if it is in fact not a typo.

Re the aircraft though, strangely, I am a great fan of systems complexity in P3D tube liners, but I am not all that gung ho  in military fighters. They are just fun to throw around the sky to me, and not necessarily on any sort of regular basis. 

As has been commented on previously, if anyone is looking for complexity in any sort of aircraft, MSFS is not yet the place to begin a search. This, of course, will change in time, and I am looking forward to that as well as flight fidelity above mach 1.  So, not a first day purchase for me, but one to look at in the future, if the price comes down or they have some significant sales.  I guess that is going to be the consensus but it will be interesting to follow their sales charts at this price.

Tony

Pass for me I think. Although I’d love to have the time and skills to git gud at combat for jets in DCS I just don’t see it happening in this lifetime, especially in DCS’s 1990s terrain engine. Would love to have a good military jet just for flight in MSFS though, to sate the schoolboy in me.

Hopefully Razbam can port their M2000c over seeing as it was originally an ESP module,
 

5 hours ago, Ragnaroq said:

There seems to be some validity in the sim not working properly above Mach 1. I bought the Eurofighter a few days ago. And there seems to be stability issues above 800 knots, shaking and trembling in the top speed range.

EXACTLY!!

4 hours ago, Ragnaroq said:

I'm not sure if it's the sim or the Eurofighter that is at issue in my quote above.....

I believe it would be the sim - just look at the videos of a hacked Eagle and hacked Tomcat going "supersonic" over NYC. The ASI gauge (generic external view one) shows the speed is well into the red barberpole zone and you can see the planes violently shaking and trembling as you describe.

As an aside, I do like taking SWS F-4 Phantom II out for a rip in FSX:SE now and again: Fly too fast at low level and the elevator locks up (as does the one on the Alphasim Viggen..). The only shaking and shimmying which the Phantom does occurs at high AOA and near the stall..  

Steve Dra said: 

Did they overcome the limitation of getting her to fly past Mach 1 in the sim?

I modded the C172 and it could go ~1300 knots ground speed at sea level (without diving) and it maxed out at around 2700 +/- 5 knots ground speed at higher altitudes (max speed increasing up to 2700 at ~45,000 feet).  At higher altitudes (> 60,000 feet) it is very hard to not be going max speed but this is probably due to the way I implemented hyper speed in the c172.  In 90 degree knife turn if you pulled back hard it would accelerate beyond that up max speed even at sea level.  Max altitude in fs2020 is 275,000 feet and the modded c172 can easily get there and still has aerodynamic control (especially if below 2100 knots ground speed) which is weird.

 Buffeting seemed to vary based on airplaine flight model parameters but especially on weight and altitude.  Heavier would buffet more at a given speed.  On my modded 172 buffeting was unavoidable above about 2100 knots ground speed regardless of flight model or altitude.

Edited January 21, 20215 yr by N7470

1 hour ago, himmelhorse said:

Chock,

This could well be a typo of course. Something I am extremely familiar with due largely to my dyslexic typing fingers. 

Fair comment though if it is in fact not a typo.

Nah, it wasn't a typo, it was the English spelling of Concord, whereas the aeroplane uses the French spelling of it with an E. All the fans of the aeroplane know that, especially since it is also one of the few aeroplanes which is known by a name without a qualifying object article - as most aeroplanes are - that is to say everyone refers to it as 'Concorde' when they see it, rather than 'a Concorde' or 'the Concorde'. And certainly never 'Concord'.

Moreover, most people who are fans of the aeroplane are aware too that the spelling of the name was quite a point of contention at the time, twice actually. It was something of a concession by the UK that they initially agreed to the French spelling for the name of the thing when development started, but a row brewed up again over the spelling when Harold Macmillan fell out with Charles de Gaulle over the French premier being rude to him. Mac changed the spelling back to the English Concord. However, after a bit of time this argument died down and when its prototype was rolled out in Toulouse in 1967, Tony Benn, who was at the time the Minister of Technology, announced that it would be changed back to the French spelling with an E.

Here is Benn on the left shaking hands with Maurice Papon - the president of Sud Aviation - at the rollout of Concorde:

Benn was an RAF pilot in WW2, so he was actually a bit more au fait than most politicians in terms of what the Concorde might mean for the UK aviation industry. However, Benn came under fire from the press and public for his reversal of the decision over the name's spelling, but being the quick-witted guy he was, he said that the E on the end stood for England, Excellence, Europe and Entente.

This clever bit of blagging actually worked briefly to quell criticism, that was until some people from Scotland complained that the nose for the aeroplane was actually not made in England, but Scotland. Sharp and intelligent as always, Benn replied that the E also stood for Ecosse, which is of course the French name for Scotland. Being staunchly socialist as a result of his experiences in WW2, Benn wasn't always everyone's favourite politician, but he was a man of his convictions and he was undeniably a clever bloke.

 

Edited January 21, 20215 yr by Chock

I took a deep breath before entering this thread. The feedback isn't as bad as I thought it would be.😅

They haven't flown the plane yet. Give it time...

Looks like something from a PlayStation game. Those mfds hurt my sim heart. 
 

starting DCS now to recover

It's tempting me. I'm about to buy it, I think. From DC Designs F-15:

Quote

...the new 'Modern' aerodynamics system with the ability to provoke 'departure spins'

Yay, departure spins!! My favorite! Looks like a nice bird. This Tornado F3 they have under development is one I'm really interested in.

CEO at Asobo Studios, Sebastian Wloch says they plan on supersonic flight model very soon:

 

3 hours ago, HighBypass said:

EXACTLY!!

I believe it would be the sim - just look at the videos of a hacked Eagle and hacked Tomcat going "supersonic" over NYC.

Yeah I figured it was most likely the sim. I was somewhat aware of the issue before I bought the Eurofighter. It's a fun jet and should be even more fun when the supersonic speed issue is sorted out by Asobo. It's much faster, by like 300 knots, than the MB-339, before it gets into trembling territory. The MB-339 tops out at around 500 knots and the Eurofighter flies stable to around 850ish knots.

I will just stick with FSX. My Blackbird does Mach 3.5 just fine. High speed even better implemented in X-plane 11

1 minute ago, Gary1124 said:

I will just stick with FSX. My Blackbird does Mach 3.5 just fine. High speed even better implemented in X-plane 11

I have the Blackbird in FSX as well, a favorite since childhood.

OK so I bought it.

This is a super easy to fly jet. Very stable, and very predictable. And fast acceleration.

The HUD is great, I set up a view where it is really big, I have a 4 monitor setup and use the top 3 for view, and the 4th bottom one for instruments, either popouts or AirManager panel.

I was amazed I just jumped in at KBOS, flew out over the bay climbed to 20,000 and came back in to land, super steady and rock solid to land. All this in about 3 minutes.

Then I took off to KPSM about a 5 minute flight, tried a stall at 15,000'  a couple rolls. Then set up for another easy landing she stops fast if you use the airbrake and maintain 145 on approach. Seems much more solid feeling than the Eurofighter.

Tomorrow I will do more testing but this is one fun plane in FS2020. And even with my middle range 4 year old system my frame rate was great no stutters at all even in Boston at 500kts.

So I highly recommend this for some easy fun flying after wrestling with the WACO, I love the WACO as well. But this is a different thrill. It is all good.

You don't get much for $40 these days, just a tank of gas for the truck. So to me it is a no brainer...

Be safe out there. And Sim on.

11 minutes ago, 177B said:

OK so I bought it.

This is a super easy to fly jet. Very stable, and very predictable. And fast acceleration.

The HUD is great, I set up a view where it is really big, I have a 4 monitor setup and use the top 3 for view, and the 4th bottom one for instruments, either popouts or AirManager panel.

Thanks for the report. I have a similar 4 monitor setup. Top 3 for windshield. The bottom monitor for moving map or youtube entertainment. ha ha I'll probably get it in the morning when I'm fresh. Sounds fun.

This sums it up quiet nicely, no more words needed: