SgtPappy
-
Posts
1219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SgtPappy
-
-
Try purchasing the Tomcat jnstead, if you dont load the
Phoenix it is pretty similar to the Phantom, except for the swing wings :)
I have! And I love it, especially when I play the RIO but of course you and I both know it is about as similar to the F-4 as the 777 is to the C-17!
Yes, but no, the F-4E got put on ice, when BST merged with ED, so they could put all their manpower on the F/A-18 and now F-16 and Mi-24.Is it true that separate teams work on the rotary wing aircraft and the fixed wing aircraft? I'm doing my best to grasp at every chance I can even if it's naive thinking :D
-
Darn, I suppose any timeframe guess is just speculation right now... I have my fingers crossed!
-
It would be so great to have a new, weird missile too in the form of the Red Top - one of the first all-aspect heaters, albeit only against targets at supersonic speeds. The Lightning is huge in UK history and was the only supersonic plane completely designed in that country!
-
Someday. After the f16 or mi24 maybe.
Is it not true that there are people working on the helis and another team is dedicated to the fixed wing aircraft? Not sure if that's ever been confirmed.
Fingers crossed the F-4E is after the F-16. I have been waiting for that plane to pop up in this level of realism for almost a decade and I'm too excited!
-
Of which we currently have exactly the UH-1H, the MiG-19 (forgot that one), MiG-21 in a faaaaar more modern version, a more modern F-5E and the community mod A-4E in a too modern version... can make do, but it is still a more late 70ies to 80ies mix of aircraft.
The other "ideas" may be around in 2025, but I prefer the Afghanistan and Syria maps, may be a Balkans map, until they arrive, especially with the F-16C coming soon. ;)
I think it is an understandable idea that the planes are modeled a little later than their respective most famous conflicts simply because they can be used in way more scenarios which is a nice idea.
I always thought that the biggest difference between the MiG-21MF (which saw combat in Vietnam) and the MiG-21bis was really just the special afterburner. Does the latter add loads of A/G capability too?
Why is not a Phantom for this era. The block 43 has arrived in the late 1960.Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
From the last updates before Belsimtek became a part of ED, we are getting something like the F-4E Block 50+ with maneuvering slats, TISEO and ARN-101 navigation/bombing system. This is representative of the project Rivet Haste F-4E's that saw combat from November 1972 to January 1973 (and also in Cambodia the following years) except for the ARN-101. Rivet Haste F-4E's operating with the 555th TFS did indeed drops bombs and fire AGM-65s in anger but only 3x AIM-7's were ever fired at MiGs, none of which resulted in a kill. All slatted F-4E kills would subsequently go to Israel and Iran.
-
On a test stand, the engine is drawing air without an inlet obstructing it. So, the quoted 20,800lbs for the TF-30 is higher than when installed in the aircraft at static, same with the F-110-GE-400's 27,600lbs. The Wikipedia page actually just copies the information from the F-14D's NATOPS regarding the F-110-GE-400: 23,400lbs installed at a stand-still, 30,200lbs installed .9M.
.
To add to all your points, I found a previous discussion on this 4 years ago citing Gilchrist:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2534677&postcount=24
The whole discussion is here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149144
-
Hi guys, I just wanted to kindly ask you to please not point fingers too much and stay on topic with the FM. :) Let us not forget that DCS is a living environment, ever evolving and thus ever changing. This is of course necessary and naturally it will mean that parts of the sim need ongoing revision, be it by ED, 3rd party or even modders. In fact, this is really something that is quite normal and expected. Fat creason's post was meant to give you insight in how and why we have to go about the FM, but it was not meant to blame anyone or anything. Quite the opposite, we believe the insight that we can give you, can lead to a better mutual understanding of the ongoing processes and necessities in the background. It is meant to bring us all closer together.
In a way we all have to manage our expectations - but if you take a step back and look at it from a distance, we have come really far all together the past decade and more. Things are possible today that were unthinkable even a few years back. Some of us have been flying it for 16 years now, the Flanker 2.0 generation even longer. That is 2 decades of fun in continuity - I believe there is few sims and games that can match that. In the end, this has been possible because of all your amazing and continued support. Thank you! :thumbup:
Great work to the Heatblur team, and the information is very much appreciated. I still believe this is IMO the highest quality module I own!
-
My question is, what is the thrust of a TF30 at full afterburner on a test stand (not moving), and what is the thrust of a TF30 at full afterburner as the aircraft approaches and exceeds mach 1?
Wikipedia and a few other sites state that the TF30 made about 20,840 lbs of thrust, while the F-110-400 made around 30,000 lbs of thrust... but I suspect that's comparing apples to oranges. The F-110-400 only made about 23,400 lbs of thrust on the stand, and only rose to 30k lbs. as the aircraft approached mach 1. I've heard that the TF30 made closer to 27,000 lbs of thrust at mach 1, but I'm wondering if that is accurate.
So I have had this discussion a few times with the amazing guys here and on Reddit.
Static, SL thrust at full burner for the TF30-P-414A (all of them really) is ~20,840 - 20,900 lbf of thrust. Installed, static SL thrust is ~17,077 lbf of thrust. I am not to sure if it really is apples to oranges - they are both turbofan engines installed in the same aircraft - but the installed thrust of the F110-GE-400 I think was only 23,400 lbf or so while the uninstalled thrust was closer to 28,000 lbf. I take these numbers with a generous ±100 lbf or so but you get the idea.
Indeed, the ram air effect starts to give more thrust at supersonic speeds, and I believe it was Okie that ballparked it around 28,000 lbf past Mach 1 at lower altitudes. I unfortunately do not have the plots to show these figures.
-
@stuart666
Joke aside... A sea vixen... Like this era planes, would be awesome. I also like venom and sea venom (wich are kind of older brother). It would also perfectly fit with Draken, Mirage III, F4E... Even a F100, Hunter, Javelin, Mystère IV, Super Mystère, F104 (not the mod one) would be fun to give challenger to the Mig 19 :p Unfortunately no one seems to care about these old boïs :p Maybe too old? :)
I know we're getting a little off -topic but I just have to chime in - I'm waiting so patiently for the F-4E (for which I am losing hope) and then the Vietnam War community will have so much fun and reason to fly that era of planes :)
-
We have been working on a solution for this over the past few months and hope that we can implement it soon. Thank you for reporting it.
Thank you IronMike, and as always, fantastic work on the best module I own!!!
-
I was experiencing a few crashes one night (which I think was Windows since many programs were crashing) so I updated my computer and restarted.
One of my crashes happened while I was RIO for a friend. When I restarted and joined his plane, none of my bindings worked. Not even the keyboard. Yet the controls would work for everything not F-14 related. Views zoom in, other aircraft controls and my F-15 controls were all functioning.
Not sure what happens but it seems to be fixed when my friend respawns. Furthermore, the sortie is problematic for both of us because Jester tends to not respond during this crash.
Is there anything that can be done or is it a DCS code issue?
Thank you!
-
engine nozzles of "A" variant look very ugly.
I hope they release carrier before this tomcat A. I doubt i will ever use it when it is released
I don't mean to be rude, but I legitimately wonder why when people do not like something, they go to a convention of people who like something and then complain or have the need to state how much they don't like said thing.
I wouldn't go to a soccer match and ask everyone why they love soccer so much and I find it boring.
If you're not going to contribute, you really don't have to say anything.
-
There are lots of missing keybinds at the moment: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235229
CW/CCW binds will be added later on I guess.
Meanwhile, if you use custom-built controllers, the workaround is quite easy (use a variable as counter and +/- on CW/CCW and send different Joystick HID outputs depending on the counter status).
Thanks Karon! I have the Thrustmaster T16000M HOTAS. Would the software that came with this setup be able to do what you mentioned?
-
It doesn’t surprise me if AWACS could pick up a missile, depending on the missile. An AIM-54 size missile doesn’t surprise me at all.
Yeah, you’re AWG-9 is communicating to the Phoenix, but not via Link 4. It’s communicating via missile messages sent from the AWG-9 via a modulated CW output.
Thanks Spiceman.
All the enemy missiles I saw on DL were AMRAAMs as only REDFOR had the F-14s which we were flying. It's not impossible to believe that these, as well as bombs could actually be picked up by AWACS, but it is pretty mind-blowing to me!
-
I could not find any specific threads for this but was wondering if the RIO cockpit rotary knobs have their own CW/CCW binds.
I am having an absolute blast being a RIO! But having a separate keybind for each knob when you could just have two keys is quite inconvenient. Is this being looked at in any build?
Thanks!
-
Sorry overlapped with Spicemans answer but my thoughts fwiw which are kinda similar to Spicemans.
At the moment as mentioned earlier the missile is active off the rail. This makes following it in irelavant you are just increasing your own risk.
Spicemans shot at 40 to 50 nm is optimising the Rsep and in real life with a properly modelled missile you will have either shot or missed before even getting inside the targets kill range. You can set up a grinder with a wingman and never let anything inside the tgts kill zone especially with the link.
Your 20 nm shots are not optimising the missiles capability and following it in puts you at risk.
However it's way more fun good at practicing your crew co operation and your radar work rather similar to the profile I do on our training server as you get way more training out of it. Keeping the radar on a target that is manouvering inside 20 nm is way more work if you are in tws manual. Or even working in pulse after a tgt beams you and you are not below him enough. You just need to bear in mind that these are high risk manouvers that in reality you may not want to do.
Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk
Thanks for the feedback guys!
For the most part, we will launch at 30-40 nm but the 20 nm shot is the minimum range we would do all I mentioned above. One of the main reasons we find shots under 30 nm works in this game is 1) the missile has lots of energy by the time it reaches the target and 2) lots of people use terrain masking and it starts becoming easier for the missile to hit the ground.
But to your point, I think we are starting to practise more being patient by firing at around 30 nm and if the missile on the TID does not seem to be tracking, we turn to gimbals in preparation to turn cold and try again later.
Another question I have is how realistic is the missiles showing up on radar/datalink? I always thought our AIM-54s showed up because they might be communicating with the AWG-9 but I am often seeing enemy missiles. Is this the radar actually picking them up? Is it really possible for AWACs to pick up such a small RCS and show them on datalink?
-
Use the Phoenix' range to your advantage... shoot at 40-50 NM and it will hit him before he ever has the chance to command his missile active. It's pretty doubtful he'll be content to stare in the face of your PTT in the first place, and there's a good chance he'll be too busy maneuvering to get a shot off at you. I'll shoot a couple videos of what I would do and post them up.
I would like feedback on my strategy with my pilot. I wonder if we are we doing anything wrong:
What my pilot and I have been doing is we will try to be co-alt or slightly under the bandit (at greater than 20 miles) and I will lock on TWS while keeping track of other targets while in TWS. This has saved us numerours times when another datalink or radar contact pops up closer than the bandit we're focusing on.
We will only fire on up to two targets at most if necessary just to keep one bandit off our backs while focusing on one target. If we can, we will close on the one primary target and then PD-STT him, put him in the TCS and continue until we see the explosion or the missile timer expire with no kill.
I find this is an optimal combination of stealth (they do not know we launched a missile but I am not sure if non-F-14 aircraft can see missiles on their datalink/radar as we do), and the reliable PD-STT after makes the missile likelier to hit while giving us TCS. I've tried using TCS independently but it does not seem to lock well at long range without the radar.
For anything less than or equal to 20 nm, I will just use PD-STT right away, and specifically at les than 15 miles, it's all pilot with PAL/AUTO ACQ modes.
-
So I am still having an issue, at least in MP, that when my pilot loads up 4x AIM-7s and 4x AIM-9s on the gloves, I still see the AIM-54 pylons with the AIM-7s clipping through. My pilot does not see the pylons. Note that I usually play as this pilot's RIO.
Then if he changes back to AIM-54s, the pylons disappear and the AIM-54s are left floating. I will see if I can post some pictures tonight after work.
-
How accurate are the F-16 AI?
It is very likely that they are not even remotely accurate, especially since they have simple flight models.
-
Seriously just wanna take a moment and thank the whole HB team for their hard work and trying to keep us all updated as much as possible. You seriously can’t say that about a few of the 3rd party devs (not pointing fingers, we all know who they are). Remember, this is all being done while they’re working on the A model cat too as well as their other projects (A6).
Are there bugs? Yes, obviously. Are they bad enough to keep my cat on the sidelines? Hell no. If anything the more we fly the cat the better feedback and data we can get to HB for improvements and fixes.
Yes, as mentioned in other threads, we are the testers for the F-14B and I am so happy to be able to do so for Heatblur. Great work, and I can;t say how much I enjoy this aircraft! Can't wait for the F-14A!
-
Even before the patch you could easily take the f16 in the vertical.
Perhaps you could! I assume those who could not before have no trouble now
-
I like to carry an AIM-54 and an AIM-9 on each glove and 4x AIM-7s in the tunnel. It's a bitch to dogfight with if you do not use your Phoenix rounds before the merge, but once they are gone, it's a lot less drag and weight since the massive pylons will not be there.
Was this ever a real loadout?
-
I wonder if anyone is going to fly the F-14A when it arrives ?
• TF30-P-414A = 20,900 lbf maximum thrust
• F110-GE-400 = 23,400 lbf of thrust with afterburner at sea level, 30,200 lbf at Mach 0.9
I'm enjoying the current iteration of the F-14B but engine limitations are the least of the aircraft's problems while I'm in the pilot seat :lol:
The 20,900 lbf quoted above for the TF30-P-414A is the uninstalled, static SL thrust. Installed, it produces ~17,080 lbf at static, SL conditions. At Ma = 0.9, the TF30 will generate about 28,000 lbf installed, as I have been told.
The 23,400 lbf quoted above is the installed thrust of the F110-GE-400 at static, SL conditions. Uninstalled, SL static thrust is somewhere closer to 28,200 lbf.
So a quick summary is:
Static, SL, installed thrust:
TF30-P-414A ~= 17,077 lbf (per NATOPS)
F110-GE-400 ~= 23,400 lbf
SL, Mach 0.9, installed thrust:
TF30-P-414A ~= 28,000 lbf
F110-GE-400 ~= 30,200 lbf
-
That is also the (dry) thrust value I could find for the TF30, but you're comparing its dry thrust with the afterburner thrust of the J79 :P
I thought that too! But it is not the dry thrust of the TF30. I can't send the link because I am at work now but this F-14 pilots specifically states in A/B (search on youtube: "F-14 Tomcat at the Wings of Eagles Airshow 1997", go to 2:20). Finally if you manage to find the F-14A manual from 2005 or 2006 (can't remember, nor am I allowed to link it here), it definitely states 17,077 lbf of thrust per engine in burner and 10,000 something lbs in MIL. I have yet to read more. Maybe the manual also says somewhere in there as to why. No luck so far.
Also this website - though admittedly is not a source - is consistent with the statement: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm
F-4E Phantom news?
in Chit-Chat
Posted
Sounds like we will have to wait after Viper release to really see where the F-4E will be on the priority list. If they really do have to work on 1 at a time, it's a safe bet the Mi-24 is first :(