SgtPappy

Apologies, I read your previous post incorrectly and thought you were asking. A bit dyslexic on my part. I created a table below where the data came from manuals and the MiG-21 data you also showed. I linearly interpolated against altitude since the subsonic turn rates seems to vary linearly with altitude. There could be a little error on my part of course, but it is meant to just be a quick and dirty comparison. The supersonic portions are mostly left out because interpolating there was clearly not valid. Also, the 6G line label is a little off. the line that says "6G" is actually 6.4 G and the one just under it is the actual 6 G line but I was having trouble with the labels. Also I am not too sure where you found the MiG-21bis to pull more than 8G sustained on special burner. My diagram says at sea level, it only reaches around 7.25G with special burner at 7500 kg (best I could find). I can't imagine 2x R-3S's would make such a massive difference:

I haven't been able to check while at work, but maybe the aviation blogspot MiG-21bis manual has the info to compare the MiG to the F-8: MiG-21bis manual: click here or here. The second one has the plots for sure but they used to be viewable without a sign-up to the site. I am told signing up is free though. F-8E supplementary manual with sustained turn and stall envelopes: click here

These are good words to live by! Perhaps I don't give the hard-wing Phantoms enough credit. Are you adding the AIM-9G as well as the H the F-8? I think either missile would be the best rear-aspect missile compared to what's in game now.

All 100% agreed. The slick wing Phantoms were extremely good performers. On paper, the slats just killed the performance, but for me personally (and clearly a lot of other USN and USAF brass), trading off all that performance for better turning was worth it. Comparing manuals, even the slatted F-4E still blows the F-5, F-8E/J out of the water with top speed, climb and acceleration and has very similar performance to the MiG-21bis but with better sustained turning in general. The slick Phantoms were rockets but they would buffet in a sustained turn at mach 0.35 at Sea level... that's pretty fast for what feels like a stall! The N and S are so cool - I saw an S in California last year. But for me, historical context is pretty important. The N and S served, but as far as I know, they did not see actual combat in any capacity and by the time they showed up, the F-14 was well into service with the F/A-18 arriving as well. By this time, historically, the F-4 was past its prime as a top-dog fighter. It was a new age. Any of its improvements are made a little moot to me simply because of the brand new jets which were far superior in aerial combat. Further, I am not attributing the Israeli aces successes to slatted F-4E's - I am just saying that the F-4E has lots and lots of combat history especially with them and they happened to get slatted F-4E's - similar to the ones at the end of Vietnam which had used AGM-65's for the first time in combat. ALL THAT SAID - if we got an F-4J (or even an S) I would not complain. Carrier landings are among my favourite things to do in sims and all F-4's are welcome to me (except the recon versions lol). The F-8 is not going to be a magical fighter. Just like any other fighter of the time it had its limitations. But its a badass, carrier-capable fighter with more of everything good than the F-5 we have now (which I also love to fly). Finally we will have the option for FOUR AIM-9's and the best of the best at the time, the AIM-9G! Looking forward to many a tail strike while practicing carrier landings! I believe it was confirmed that we are getting the best F-8J's with the more powerful J57-P-420.

Whatever gets chosen, it will make a great teammate to the Crusader! And yes, you were right about the weapons, radar and training of the USN F-4's Hiromachi! Just like the F-8 pilots, they were the deadliest in the skies. Although the F-4B's saw service, none of them say in -N standard. Slatted F-4E saw combat and made multiple aces with both the USAF and Israel, which most people forget. The IDF has nine aces in the F-4E which saw combat in the Yom Kippur war with slats and the gun making them pretty good dog fighters. Back to the F-8 though, it will be a beast... it's better than the F-5 in virtually every way so I can;t wait to have cold war servers with it available.

Yes, another Phantom Phan! We need a "DCS on-hold/cancelled the F-4" Support Group right here! I'd prefer an F-4J over the F-4S or F-4N myself since it saw combat. And I think the slatted F-4E's were actually designed for air-to-air - slats, TISEO, APX-80 IFF - all are air-to-air assets. When they went to Vietnam, they also had crews that trained together, like the Navy, so that they could be more proficient than ever before. But they also did add AGM-65A's and more potent air-to-ground stuff.

Another thing I cannot seem to figure out are these plots (attached). The F-8E tactical combat supplement has a plot for sustained turn rates as well as P_s plots. Thing is, the former is in CAS and the latter, in true Mach. At first glance, it appears that the error from CAS is so small at 5000 ft that they match - the STR plot says 410 KCAS at 5G (5000 ft alt) and the P_s plot says true Mach 0.62 for a sustained 5G (5000 ft alt). However when I cross-referenced with the F-8H/J manual speed conversion chart (from CAS to true Mach and TAS), it appears that if I take 410 KCAS, that's a Mach of 0.66 and TAS of ~430 kn. The plots do not all seem to agree - that is 410 KCAS at 5000 ft =/= true Mach 0.62.. I do not think the F-8J instrumentation changed since the F-8E either. Does anyone have an explanation? F-8E sustained turn rate plots F-8H/J speed conversion chart

Since the MiG-21bis seems to be the only module to model jams - it would be interesting if this could be made a special option for the F-8 for the sake of realism. The sources I've read said it happened in Vietnam 3 of 8 firings at least until Dec 1966 (source) and another says it would happen above 3.5G and that strafing was not an issue (F-8 vs MiG-17 Osprey book). I don't know if there is any real data stating that it happens 100% only above a certain G or if it was completely unpredictable but it would be really immersive.

It was stated by Hiromachi in this thread or another that no time frame can be offered at this time. It is still very early.

In the restricted missions, the MiG-21's should only be getting R-60's. Not R-60M's. Both are all aspect but the M's are much better. The response to this is shown below: Now if the reds are actually getting R-60M's and the blues are not getting AIM-9P5's, then that's a whole different story.

This is incredible. I am only getting more hyped for your Crusader! Any chance you can share these documents with us? I'd like to learn more but I understand if you can't since if it's paid for or you have an NDA.

Hey that's awesome news! I had no idea the Crusader had this capability at all. Sounds like the radar screen would have to be switched between a warning mode and combat modes. Not too detrimental as the radar screen would primarily be only used for night flying and the use of SEAM on the AIM-9G. Sometimes the things you learn from researching them makes flying them that much more fun.

Good luck with your research! This is something I haven't managed to find either. Do you know when airframe change 490 was enacted? Did these F-8J's with such changes make it to the remaining Crusader fleet before their last actions in Vietnam in 1972?

Sounds good!

For #3: Does this mean we will no longer have any missions with restricted weapons? Just curious as this was my favourite (especially during the water stations/lake mission) or will you have two sets of all the missions - one set with restricted weapons and the other set with full weapons?

Thanks for the response Alenwolf! Sounds good :) I had thought the whole reason the restriction was made was for balance but I misunderstood.

Very enjoyable as always AspenWolf! However, I continue to notice that in the mission with restricted missiles, the MiG-21s carrying R-60's (not R-60M's) can still use those missiles at any aspect while the F-5E's are left with rear-aspect AIM-9P's only. Not sure about the Viggen. I am not sure if this is the intent of the weapon restriction, but it seems unfair and my flares seem to have no effect on the missiles (but perhaps that is something I need to practice). Either way, I have the tacview and the fight starts at 4m40s (I am GalmOne) but I was unable to record the second fight with the same results in tac. I have video evidence only of the second fight. DCS-The Desert Has Eyes - all aspect R-60s at 4m40s.zip

I'm with you on this one. I am also extremely disappointed. The reason I got into jet combat at all was the F-4. I don't run this business though, so it's not my call obviously but it's still pretty sad.

This is how I feel. If we had a more mid-Cold War plane set (i.e. I'm thinking Vietnam War/Middle East war-era planes like the F-4, MiG-23, MiG-25, Mirage III etc.) along with less useless AI and a robust dynamic campaign with progress saves, we'd have a really immersive game where there is purpose - not just a bunch of planes in a sandbox. As it is now, I spend most of my time doing DACT with buddies or airQuake stuff to better my skills in air-to-air combat, and it's therefore rare that I dedicate time to play. Don't get me wrong, it's super fun! However with a lacking purpose, it feels empty and when I want more of my friends to join, there simply is not as much fun to be had.

Agreed, I admit maybe people would like to hear a little more praise and thanks which is fine, but no one is obligated to completely ignore faults either. Is early access not for testing? Is this not testing? It's one thing if someone said "This is horrible, I'm upset at the fact that it does not have feature X, Y or Z" Contrast that to: "It's early access so I know there are some bugs. Here are some bugs: X, Y and Z" The latter is quite obviously a tester. I don't believe there is any berating there. If you get emotional when you read something like that, it's okay, but it's on you - it's not the alpha/beta tester's fault if they didn't use any charged language. ANYWAY - The F-16 looks and sounds lovely and I can't wait for someone to do some 80's dogfights - the way Boyd intended!

Let's take a breath with accusations - no one is trying to stir up any trouble and we are all learning. The idea of these pictures is that of a scientific approach - in controlled environments, plane X does this and plane Y does that. This way we can do our best to fight to these circumstances but we train so that we can practice all that which cannot be quantified. Both are necessary - the modeling and the experiments - to get a good picture. If you never look at the plots because they never reflect real life, it'll take you a lot more training to get good and figure out something you would have known by reading and also flying.

I can't blame you there since the F-4 was first and foremost a Navy plane. And to have a true F-4 experience, I think there would need to be both the F-4E and one of either the F-4B/J/S present at minimum. The F-4E is the most produced and handily the most successful so I understand why they would choose this. Sometimes, I wish the talented individuals who made the A-4 at Hoggit could make us an F-4J while we wait for the F-4E *nudge, nudge, wink, wink!*

Agreed, that's what makes the F-4 so awesome because of all the history it has created. If you're from any of the export countries - especially Israel - the F-4E is the way to go. 116 kills and 9 aces, that's the most iconic to me. Actual combat history speaks volumes of an aircraft's capability.

It would be great to have both the F-4E and the F-4J - very different in performance even though to the untrained eye, they look extremely similar. Though the F-4E that we are (still hopefully) getting has the ARN-101 and other upgrades, aerodynamically it will perform basically identically to the Rivet Haste F-4E's that fought in Vietnam at the very end of the US involvement in that war so it's not totally off from that kind of scenario. The F-4S would be a little weird to see there, and it would give more variety to have an F-4J since both the UK and the USN used it. A man can dream!

This! I spend almost all my time as a RIO with a friend and as we try to splash as many bandits as we can. Our enjoyment comes from learning the best strategies and improving our communication so we can become deadlier without dying. I am just starting to fly the thing with Jester in the back and although it's fun, I much enjoy being in the back with a buddy up front.