SgtPappy
-
Posts
1219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SgtPappy
-
-
Yup, unfortunately it doesn't pertain to the Mig-21bis we have in game, so many of those conclusions have to be re-evaluated.
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
-
1
-
-
Have Doughnut was based on MiG-21 F-13. Lower weight and much better maneuverability than MiG-21bis, but also lower thrust. Emergency afterburner on MiG-21bis makes a huge difference, in vertical especially. However F-8, if it manages to stick in a longer fight, should be able to survive. MiG-21bis with emergency burner will burn fuel rapidly while F-8 was known for a very good range and moderate fuel consumption.Buffet is a good sign, you have to understand it, not be afraid of it.
...
I guess B / N would be natural. Some other sims got it that way.
These are good words to live by! Perhaps I don't give the hard-wing Phantoms enough credit.
Flight manual even mentions newest loadout with AIM-9H.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.
-
Slats killed all that feedback. They also reduced noticeably rate of climb and top speed (I'm comparing here J to S). Finally, due to slats aircraft bled the energy even more than ever (that is something you get to experience with FC3 MiG-29 as well). So it really depends what you wanna do with it. If you wanna turn, F-4E and S are for you. But if you can pay attention to the energy levels and keep fight in the vertical, F-4B or J would be just as good.
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 saw service most certainly. Got a lot of pictures from 70s and 80s. They just might've missed Nam earlier, but by the end of 1973 one Navy squadron was station in Japan (Atsugi base I think). Also, I seriously dont think slats had anything to do with F-4E success. More so employment of AIM-9D and vast organizational superiority over Syrian and even Egyptian Air Force. Tom Cooper's got that right in his massive 6 volume history of Arab air wars. I really recommend reading that one.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).
F-8 will be a bold fighter. Lots of power and lots of tricky characteristics. ... All the accounts I read so far make it obvious, that aircraft was fantastic to fly but it punished you for every mistake. But then again, thats what 21 does already :joystick: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!
It also doesnt specify which F-8 version they were talking about. We are getting the beefy J with the P420 engine and some aero improvements. I heard somewhere the F-8 has a better roll-rate than the 21bis.I believe it was confirmed that we are getting the best F-8J's with the more powerful J57-P-420.
-
Navy and Marines > Air Force any day :P
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.
-
If this goes one some team will finally do it.
Yeah, but E is generally a more ground pounding than air to air platform. I personally like J and N.
B/N shared some ECM and RWR stuff with F-8J too.
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
-
Is it really when the guns jam every time you pull G? :P
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.
-
No you're not the only one, I'm just pumped for this incredible aircraft! Also, is there a general time frame we can expect? i.e. 1 year, or 2 years?
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.
-
yeah so why do the reds get R-60Ms but we don't get Rb74s or AIM-9P5s?
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:
The weapons' restriction thing is mainly to change the routine and get players to use all kinds of weapons. Here you get to work on different strategies while using less sophisticated weapons. Comparing the R-60M with the R-60 shows how players are less likely to score the same amount of kills, which proves that the restriction applies. Same thing with the AIM-9P5 and the RB-74, etc. Comparing those with their predecessors shows the exact same results. I believe many make the mistake of comparing different weapons of different manufacturers with their various variants.All planes, all cars, all vehicles, machines, electric devices, etc. have advantages and disadvantages over their counterparts. We can't just start trimming them down to get "balance" and please everyone, or so I believe.
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.
-
Actually no, you can combine the two, so that RWR works in background. It's not perfect but as manual states: "If the pilot desires full-time use of the azimuth-range indicator for the airplane radar, yet wants an immediate line-of-bearing display for emergency threat conditions, he can select override mode. With the override switch in ON, the azimuth-range indicator does not present threat lines of bearing unless a missile launch threat is received from the APR-27 receiver. When this condition occurs, the azimuth-range indicator reverts to a lines-of-bearing display, presenting lines of bearing to the emergency threats."
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.
-
I have found basic documentation describing it. Looks like AN/APR-25 system with strobes indicating threat however it does not have separate indicator like the one mounted for AN/APR-25 in F-4B / F-4J post 1966 - 1967. It's using radar screen as a display. And yes, Im pretty sure those changes were incorporated prior to 1972. A 1969 Supplemental NATOPS Flight Manual indicates them along with installation of AN/APR-27 sound warning, AN/ALQ-100 ECM, AN/ALE-29A Chaff and flare dispenser and introduction of SEAM.
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.
-
Finally, since airframe change 490, F-8J was equipped with AN/APR-30(V) Radar Homing & Warning System (same or similar as in F-4B Phantom). I admittedly am at a loss how AN/APR-30(V) system looked like :) This is one piece of a puzzle that I'm still researching.
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?
-
Players will have access to all weapons (except for nuke bombs) in all missions for 2-3 weeks max. Havoc mode on! You know, breaking the routine...
Sounds good!
-
Server News:
1. All missions have now a "Mission ends in 30 minutes" warning message included to fill the gap between the "1 hour" and "1 minute" warning messages.
2. MiG-19's in the mission Two Towns have the SPO-2 RWR enabled.
3. All weapons (except for the nuke bombs) in all missions will soon be enabled.
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?
-
The weapons' restriction thing is mainly to change the routine and get players to use all kinds of weapons. Here you get to work on different strategies while using less sophisticated weapons. Comparing the R-60M with the R-60 shows how players are less likely to score the same amount of kills, which proves that the restriction applies. Same thing with the AIM-9P5 and the RB-74, etc. Comparing those with their predecessors shows the exact same results. I believe many make the mistake of comparing different weapons of different manufacturers with their various variants.
All planes, all cars, all vehicles, machines, electric devices, etc. have advantages and disadvantages over their counterparts. We can't just start trimming them down to get "balance" and please everyone, or so I believe.
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.
-
This is extremely disappointing news to me. Belsimtek not only had the best initial releases, but were almost the sole producers of the modules that I really wanted most: the UH-1, the F-86/MiG-15, F-5E, and F-15C FM upgrade. I also loved the matched pairs approach: UH-1/Mi-8, F-86/MiG-15, AH-1/Mi-24. The F-5E is almost the perfect balanced opponent for the MiG-21bis while the F-4E would be the historically correct opponent.
The F-4E and AH-1 were projects I was really looking forward to vice the umpteenth implementation of the F-16 and F-18 in PC combat flight sims. I understood that the F-4E and AH-1 got bumped down because of the F-16 and F-18... now they are bumped down because of the P-47 and Mosquito?
I was expecting an announcement about F-4E progress in a year or two... now it sounds more like it is at least 4 or 5 years away if it ever gets done at all. It figures the one aircraft I wanted more than any other that had already been showcased as "in progress" is now effectively cancelled until further notice.
I hope Heatblur picks up a Navy F-4 variant before ED gets to the F-4E. They already have decent AI for a two-seat carrier-based all-weather fighter. An F-4B/N or F-4J/S would be just as good to me as an F-4E.
The only bright side of this news is that I can put off work on building a USB F-4E throttle for my simpit. I already have the handles mounted on an axis, but I need to mount it to the console, restrict the angular movement to the correct range, and somehow implement the idle and afterburner detents.
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.
-
As zhukov stated, a realistic mission is faaaaaar away from just "red type of aircrafts vs blue type of aircrafts". And some MP servers actually have this. On DDCS you will never see F-18 vs F-18 situation, unless it's a blue-on-blue.
Realistic mission would require that all people who want to join the mission MUST go through briefing with ground commander who will assign them tasks. Also, jumping in on random time would be disabled, you would be able to jump into the server every for ex 45 minutes. If you miss it, you don't jump in.
...
If you don't understand me, compare joining to MP server in BMS and in DCS.
In DCS all you see is "RED" and "BLUE" aircrafts. Nothing else. No map, no briefing. 1st you pick your aircraft, then you can check the briefing.
On BMS the 1st thing you see is the map and the situation, then you check the needed taskings and after that you pick your aircraft.
So yea, DCS MP isn't made to be realistic, unless the guy forces it in ME. But still, he can't do nothing more than putting certain type of aircrafts.
There will never be realistic servers in public MP unless ED completely changes their "Select role" page and overall approach to MP
...
"Hey let's have realistic mission" is an easy thing to say, but in reality very hard to achieve.
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.
-
Thank you for actually taking the time to read the posts and understanding what it is all about. I'm baffled by how little people try to actually understand or even care read through the entirety of ones post before responding.
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!
-
You accuse me of half picture, yet both in OP chart and the current diagram you posted is also oversimplification and don't offer the full picture either
IF it was just a simple matter of such, than F16 would consistently be shaming F18's ( or insert any X aircraft vs Y aircraft) in mock air combat, yet thats really not the case. They are just dissimilar aircraft in how they would fight against each other
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.
-
Not a carrier version? Without a carrier variant I loose some interest. The iconic Vietnam carrier launched F-4 is what comes to mind to me for the Phantom. Can't say I'm terribly well informed of the F-4 history. I know it was mistakenly missiles only in early version but got upgraded.
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!*
-
Depends. To me it's the Navy F-4 that's more iconic. The introduction, rivalry with Crusader, creation of Top Gun (and all the names associated with it).
To each his own I guess.
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.
-
The F-4E version ED are supposed to be working on was only used by two air forces. The USAF and ROKAF. Everyone else used either the vanilla F-4E or a locally modified version not used by anyone else. The F-4E with the DMAS/ARN-101 upgrade would be great for DCS...
In DCS, I'd like to see the F-4D, F-4E DMAS/ARN-101 and F-4G on the Air Force side and the F-4J and F-4S on the Navy side.
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!
-
Explore the back seat and its toys!
I've spend 99.7% of my time in the DCS Tomcat (150+ h) on the backseat. The weapon system, the radar, the INS and the LANTIRN are so much fun to play with, that I still have no desire to really try out the front seat!
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.
F-8 Crusader
in Magnitude 3 LLC
Posted · Edited by SgtPappy
Added MiG-21bis source diagram
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: