Skysurfer

N/T fuze, Mk82H (high drag), ripple and quantity is whatever. Be at around 500' 500knots and drop on the pipper.

Well, I stand corrected I guess. I did take the more conservative values and not the literal top pixel of each PS=0 curve. Also keep in mind the above plot for the Viper is NOT for said loadout - a 4x 120 and 2X AIM9 on the inner stations + a centerline + station 4&6 pylon will give you a DI of 30, the chart references a DI of 50, which would be something like a full AIM9 loadout with potentially two empty wing tanks. Hence why the Viper numbers are *very conservative*. Weight can obviously be assumed the same based on internal fuel. If we had clean numbers (just the gun) and maybe LAU7/38 pylons for the Tomcat we could obviously draw a raw, clean comparison but this is all that is available publically as far as I am aware. Also keep in mind, a Viper with just tip 120's and no external pylons has a DI of 0. Regardless, good inputs from everyone, but I think we are really deviating from the main topic.

I just dropped snakes from the 14A a few days ago, worked just fine. Make sure your fuze is set.

Again, those are a LOT of assumption and not facts. The cleanest charts for a Tomcat are 4 Sparrows in the tunnel, 4 AIM9's on the wing stations + LAU7/38x4 - also make sure to reference the maneuver flaps auto charts and not the ones where they are disabled. You can not somehow deduce the performance of a Tomcat from making made up estmates from an F-15. Below I'll attach the two comparable configurations where there is actual factual data for. Now, I am not saying a B/D Tomcat won't win against a Viper, it sure gets close to its performance at some altitudes and weights and has a better radius at slow speed but as always it all comes down to who actually is in the plane and how well he understands his situation. The Viper can really use that vertical and really turn up its own asshole in terms of radius when needed. The 9G level gameplan until blackout is surely not the way.

Agreed, given the goals for 2020 have been broadly missed and features marked as completed are in fact far from complete, or simply wrongly implemented, a new status report and plan for this year would be indeed much appreciated.

I dont know where you got those numbers from but they are wrong. Unless you can provide me the source or DM me the particular chart. There are no "clean config" charts for the B/D Tomcat. As far as the Viper goes, you need to calculate your drag index and weight, then take the conservative one from the chart. (DI influencing your E-regain). When we're talking ACM and energy re-gain, climb rates etc. the Viper clearly has the edge too, assuming equal pilot skill and correct gameplan. Let alone once HOBS comes into play. Feel free to continue this via DM if you so desire, just to not clutter up this thread.

Except it's not ED but HB doing it. The more quality AI units we get in DCS the better.

Personally I just stay in a 4B, 40 deg. RWS scan and point my nose if needed. Having bindable quick commands for the pre-set elevation settings like "low" or "mid-low" etc. would be useful though.

Fair enough.

*Blk. 50 And yes, agreed. Obviously charted numbers aren't everything there is to it, even though the 16C Blk 50 (GE F110-129) has a clear advantage in sustained with medium to clean loads. The 14B/D does have some advantages in INST rates at higher alts since it's not alpha limited like the Viper but it gets pretty dicey once you approach the lift limit or Alpha_crit.

Yeah I can agree with that. Maybe limit his spotting ability to like 10nm or less because it is 1) fairly annoying and 2) rather unrealistic for him to see all launched missiles around him and even below the aircraft. I'd much rather have him IFF and lock stuff correctly.

Well, if a 16 gets slow with you he gives up all his advantages (mainly G and sustained). This is where the gameplan/pilot skill come into play. If you max perform both jets the 16 ain't hearing a peep from the Tomcat, simple as that.

True, but the Hornet and Su-33 do and behave very similarly. From some shenanigans I did the 16 and 29 also taxi just fine on a moving ship without sliding or anything. Might wanna have a talk with ED's guy who did he ground physics and see what can be done.

Also doubt the IRIAF fields have ILS - is there even a need for it based on the local weather all year around? You can still do a NDB/VOR non-precision approach if needed which gets you down fairly low anyway.

Just for reference, the MIg-29, F-16 etc. all have a correct feel and ground friction coefficient to them and can taxi on idle power for prolonged periods. Currently the landing distances of the Tomcat are very much too short due to said overwhelming ground friction. Something that has sadly been there since the day of release.

Probably to be used for field arrestments etc.

Good stuff. Any chance the ground handling, mainly the tire friction and ground idle thrust will be addressed after that?

Oh wow, interesting.

Maybe I am the only one having issues all of a sudden but I find ball-flying and getting on speed in general fairly difficult in the 14A. I can be perfectly trimmed out and very slight power adjustments will significantly throw off my alpha - even DLC bursts seem to have pretty noticeable effects on your AOA compared to the B. I understand how having engines mounted below your CG affects pitch & power moments but after flying the 14B around the boat and on fields, on speed, without issues for a year this seems to really throw me off all of a sudden. Any thoughts?

It's not just an engine it's literally everything else as well. The HAF Blk 50 manuals (supplement) are public and can be found on google - go look those up. There you will find all quantifiable data you'll need and performance charts for 3 drag indexes (clean, average loadout and heavy loadout). Our DCS Viper is most certainly too fast at lower altitudes, mostly due to the lack of any damage or consequences from busting said speeds, and slightly too slow at altitude. In terms of sustained rate and energy re-gain it also underperforms vastly compared to those charts. I think those charts is what most are and *should* be referencing. Obviously those are just the crude, estimated numbers in ISA conditions based on flight test data for just 3 drag indexes and fixed weights. I do hope ED wrap up the F/A-18C development this year and focus their full attention on the Viper, primarily addressing said FM and FLCS issues and get it to like within 5% margin of error, which is the usual standard for even commercial sims and surely more than good enough for our game. People also need to understand what they are looking at and looking for when evaluating various charts and comparing airframes - most the time you won't find comparable loadouts (primarily a clean jet), altitude bands and conditions to make a fair comparison. Let alone how precise and consistent you have to be in testing that stuff in the game itsels - flying numbers *exactly* is no easy, let alone the fact that most also don't know how to set up actual ISA conditions in DCS.

Wow, I literally got braindamage reading this thread. Reminded me to never open this section of the forum again.

As always, awesome livery man!

at 30-35K you can go Mach 2 fairly easily. Give it some time.

Fair enough. Yeah most of the pictures of -A's an B's I have seen have the "ECM blisters" - I do hope they add those across the board sooner rather than later (which also would need to be adapted to each livery). Pretty odd thing to simply miss out. Hopefully those get added once we have an improved ECM simulation in the cat.

Afaik our IRIAF -95 will have no TCS and no ext. tank pylons. The -135 (early) will have TCS and pylons. Both with the ALR45 and no ECM blisters.