Jack1nthecrack
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jack1nthecrack
-
-
Will there be any Pakistani airfields modeled? Im seeing a theatre here for the JF-17!
-
7
-
-
Ive been quite a bit of searching and collecting this past week. Ive found that there is no data for turn performance as this plane was made before all the EM diagrams became popular and that the weapon manual has a good chance of being unreleaseable because of the Genie rocket. Despite that I am still going to file a FOIA request for the weapon manual and see if it bears any fruit. I have also gotten some responses from Bruce on the matter, Ill copy paste them here.
"We didn't have turn rate data on fighters in the 1960s. It wasn't classified -- we simply didn't have it and didn't use it! We did have charts showing the number of G's available at different speeds and altitudes. You've created the need for turn rae data with DCS computing! We'd take the two planes up in formation, light afterburneres and did maximum turns. We saw which one turned tightest, and which one lost airspeed. HAVE DOUGHNUT put a MiG-21F against an F-106. They did turn, and the F-106 maintained its speed while completing the turn faster than the MiG-21, but as the MiG-21 slowed, it turned in a smaller radius so that it was pulling a gun lead on the F-106. The conclusion was that the F-106 shouldn't turn with the MiG-21, even if the F-106 maintained speed better, because the MiG-21 could shoot you down in the turn. People say that the delta wing would lose speed in a tight turn, but our J-75 engine was so powerful that we kept speed better in a turn than the MiG-21.
The differfence in altitude was critical in turns. The F-106 had a low wing-loading of 52 pounds/sq ft, against the F-15's 73.1 psf, so the F-106 could out-turn the F-15 at altitude (I heard of someone who did it). The F-16 wing loading was 88.3 psf, so the F-106 should be able to out-turn the F-16 at altitude. However, at low altitudes the wing loading is not the determining factor in thicker air, so I expect the F-15 and probably the F-16 could could out-turn the F-106 at low altitudes. The F-106 was faster than the F-16.
We discovered in unofficial rat-race engagements that the F-106 could out-turn the F-4, and I discovered in an exercise that the F-105 and F-106 were about the same around Mach 1.5. I flew the F-106 against the F-102, and had plenty of power to go vertical but the F-102 could always out-turn me. I heard of F-102s out-turning the F-100 in rat races. We passed around stories of engagements, but we never the measured data that you're looking for."
"this is some data that I digested from the HAVE DOUGHNUT tests in Area 51:
MIG-21F Area 51 1968 MIG-21F 8,600 lbs dry, 12,650 lbs A/B gross weight 19,235 lbs. = 0.65 thrust/weight
F-106 16,100 lbs dry, 24,500 lbs A/B gross weight 34,510 lbs. = 0.71 thrust/weight
MiG has severe buffering above 595 KIAS
Gunsight not useful above 3 G’s, pipper jitter
ACCELERATION
35,000’ starting at 200 knots, were even up to .95, then F-106 moved out to 2,000 to 3,000 feet ahead due to ease in getting through Mach. Accelerated only to Mach 1.25, where the F-106 gets better. The MiG nose cone positioning has only three positions: subsonic, Mach 1.5, and Mach 2, while the F-106 variable ramp is activated at Mach 1.2 and programs up to Mach 2+.
TURNS
35,000 feet. F-106 in optimum turn at Mach 1.2. F-106 bled down to 3 G and 250 knots. The MiG bled down to 2 1/2 G and 200 knots. Although the F-106 had more speed, the MiG was able to stay inside the F-106 turn.
INTERCEPTS
F-106 had contacts at 18-25 miles, depending on angle, enough for positioning and firing. However, when not given GCI, both the MiG and the F-106 passed through the area, most of the time without seeing each other. GCI is needed."
This isnt much to go off of for making a DCS module, but its always nice to hear pilot anecdotes that give you an idea of the performance of their aircraft. The F-106 was no slouch.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Cab said:
Why the F-102?
I dont understand it either. Its nowhere near as fast and the only thing it does thats unique is shoot rockets from the weapon bay doors.
-
1
-
-
It's a shame to hear that BN, I understand the realism aspect, but theres also a gameplay aspect here and quite frankly it flies noticeably worse than the F-18 or Mirage 2000. I wonder if most people just dont notice it. For me, I do a lot of formation flying so something like this is very noticeable with all the fine movements I make.
-
2
-
-
Lets revive this thread! Theres an underground F-106 movement stirring in Razbam's discord server!
-
2
-
-
This is the reason I am very turned off by the F-16 and dont fly it anymore. I was told something changed the last patch and I tried it out and yes it did actually feel much better but still not great. From what Ive been told, ED tries to simulate the non-moving stick in the real plane there this weird deadzone/delay in movement when moving your stick, but in real life there is no such thing. It makes flying the F-16 such a headache, I wish it would behave more like the F-18 or Mirage 2000 that feel very crisp with stick inputs!
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:
Yes, it should, here is the link on Robert Hierl distinctly saying it should. So, it is a missing feature.
The bug is 3 years old??? Why hasnt it been fixed by now?
-
3
-
-
Why when selecting R-27T/ET it does not give you an audible tone in BVR, Vertical Scan, or Helmet modes, but in longitudinal aiming mode it does give you a tone? Is this a bug?
-
@ChizhAny news regarding the R-27 and R-77, will more weapons devs be freed up after the Apache release to work on these missiles?
-
3
-
-
Page 500! This is cause for celebration Chizh, will the R-27ER and R-77 finally be updated?? I think that is the appropriate celebration!
-
12
-
-
Do your tests in MP against other people, NOT AI! AI cheat, everything is a random dice roll in THEIR favor. I had an AI Su-30 notch me vertically against a blue sky at 5km in my Su-33. Doing tests against AI and then reporting the observations is not very scientific.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:
Keep up the posts Tavarish, they are always very interesting!
+1
-
1
-
-
Awesome! I love them.
-
1 minute ago, Spurts said:
Why ban Flankers? Radarless intercepts using Datalink and OLS is too OP?
Someone is scared of fighting Flaming Cliffs 3
-
2
-
-
Are there any charts regarding the Meteor missile? Will it be based on pure fantasy?
-
45 minutes ago, SFJackBauer said:
We as customers should not be involved with any internal process of the company. For those of you that are devs, these are "implementation details" that should be "hidden away inside the interface of the object", which is in this case ED.
Otherwise what would be next, customers demanding to do code reviews? When you go to a bakery do you get to participate in the cooking of the making of the dough?
I pay money for these full fidelity modules that I want to be as accurate as possible. I want mine and everyone else's voices to be heard and influence decisions that ED makes. We are the customers after all. Because of the community demanding realism, ED reversed their unrealistic decision to allow the F-16 to employ all 4 HARMs onboard. It's a good thing for us to have influence if we are paying. Nothing should be "hidden away" everything should be transparent.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Breakshot said:
R27 has pure pursuit vs ECM which renders it basically useless. And defies all logic.
It needs a normal pn vs ECM. But yes thanks for bringing it up!
@chizh
Отправлено с моего STV100-2 через Tapatalk
Why does it not have a normal PN though?
-
1 minute ago, FoxAlfa said:
People overestimate what a 5in antenna and 30mhz battery powered processor can do ... it needs all the help it can get ...
When will people realize a 5in antenna with a 30mhz battery will not be this insane ECM, chaff, and notch rejecting monster that they think it will be. If that was the case then the Gripen pilots in this video wouldn't support to impact while being targeted by the enemy missile as well.
-
6 hours ago, Flappie said:
Short tracks are reliable.
Long tracks are not.
This doesn't help lol, all tracks should be reliable. The system obviously needs some work if it only half works!
-
3
-
-
-
What does this mean in the context of DCS, will you change the R-27 to match the DLZ simulation? Does the DLZ simulator actually show ranges a certain percentage below the RAero ranges on the missile graph so that the pilot doesn't launch close to maximum parameters, thus has a greater chance to hit the target?
-
Maximus could you post some tracks of the R-27 missing the 150 m/s closure rate at the specified ranges?
-
Hi Chizh,
Is there a possibility of reducing the CCM value for the R-27ET, currently it is easily defeated with only a few flares. Two flares is enough to defeat it. This cannot be realistic?
-
1
-
-
CH-47F Pre-purchase
in Official Newsletters
Posted
Considering this helicopter doesnt have any weapon systems, I hope it can arrive nearly complete when it comes out in early access.
Also, I am a big fan of these release dates being revealed along with these announcements!