Stuff that really was cool :
- Flying alongside those Power Lines at about 155 ft
- even the Trees were not only for decorative manners but turned dangerous below 50 ft or so
- turning of SPILS (ctrl + I, i think ) and trying to stall from 20'000 ft or 30'000 ft
- hitting alt+F5 or ctrl+ F5 or shift + F5 or any combination of alt / shift / ctrl + F5 to just watch the other aircrafts, trains, truck-convoys move around (friendly and hostile ones)
- flying as a Tornado-Pack (A,B,C,D,E,F) was awesome but a bit dangerous
- LANDING ON ROADS, (wheels up) LANDING ON GRASS (allowed and ok, despite of that destroyed-scene, just made very cautious contact at very low speed)
- WHEELS UP LANDING in general
Confusing stuff:
Crosswind Landing by autopilot (i realize that this done with real Planes as well and i am shocked that this technique is really executed, reading about (de-)"crab" and "sideslip"-landing techniques --> i condemn those techniques even if they might be standard in airplane travel history they are simply dangerous/awkward) -
This now i have to ask for real and i am glad to direct my question to the experienced guys:
----> Why not approaching the airfield at an intercepting angle starting at the windward side and accepting being drifted to the touch down point?
Other nice parts:
-SAM's teasing by staying above 16'500 ft, or combining that with dropping and hunting down something airborne launching 1 or 2 of those AIM-9s and then going up and back home again (the other way around with enemy AWACS, starting in low terrain following mode)
- using thrust-reversers with afterburners and just-in-time-quitting (were there really no fire extinguishers on board?), using thrust reversers below 60 kts with 100% engine power without afterburners for a similar but safer effect :-D
- exceeding mach 2.3 (having a super light "simulator" plane with infinite fuel, long-level-accelerating flight at 45'000 ft and then descending at an angle of -15 degrees or so)
I missed:
-avoiding those mission planner warnings about changed weapons configurations or low fuel warnings -->sometimes it was a bit tedious to get to the desired take-off conditions
- one time reloading and refuelling at first landing after delivering the "packages"could be helpful for those command missions
- i missed (when i do compare Tornado from 1991 or so with EF2000, so i cannot really miss it) communicating with the wingmen and with the AWACS-unit.
-choosing to leave the countermeasurements pods (ECM, chaffs, Flares) at home to get extra ALARMS, ok situations for that wish are rare enough
- Getting the choice to land on the angled crosswind safe 2nd runway there were only ILS Data for the main Runways
BUT:
mission planner User Interface (UI) was somehow as genuine as the Windows 3.11 UI, at least i had that impression
So far i liked this DOS-Game, but when i viewed/watched the real PA-200s in northern Germany i feared for the Pilots sometimes, so many issues with the Landing Gears and with 1-Engine-Landings (due to my military medic duty and witnessing so many minor emergency landings, ok probably due to the number of stationed tornados those yearly minor emergencies each would total up to be about 1 or 2 per Tronado Plane per year)