ttaylor0024

Found this, enjoy! OCFMX5z-ed4

Love the missions, keep up the good work!

lol I had a similar experience the other day. Playing on the 104th I had just discovered another enemy F-15 after I had just splashed one. He was too close for missiles, so i switched to guns (first topgun reference of the thread?) After I passed him I was still undetected, however I ended up losing him because of how extremely unrealistic it is to see other targets in this game.... I can see a skyhawk fairly easily at 5nm in real life... Kept searching for him when I see a Flanker on my tail. I do some quick maneuvering and the Flanker stalls, in which I was still too close for radar so I decide pulling up on his left wing in formation makes the most logic. I figured that he didn't pull hard to get away from me so he had to be friendly.... Turns out I was right lol

It was already off by the time he started looking for me, he just checked 6

Shhh, your supposed to make the MiG sound good... Haha But yes, teamed up the MiG is much better. It was very easy to bait those F-15s to the mountains, in which one would go defensive and the other would... End the f-15. If anyone else wants to join, we would like to get a school of fish to swarm people

Hopped on the 159th tonight... After playing on the 104th so much, any other server is easy. 5 kills, 2 from guns, 1 R-60M, and 2 R-3R. MiG-21 was on top of the leaderboard above all the Gen-4s

We will find you...... :thumbup:

Obviously not, the -21 is a 3rd gen fighter. It can just start to see enemies on radar when they can already be releasing missiles. It's not even a fight.

We all obviously know that basically every aircraft created since the MiG-21 is better. It's have to be stupid to believe the MiG-21 is better than the F-15. We know the differences, and it's not even a contest. However The aircraft is only as good as the pilot inside it, meaning that the pilot has toe play on the advantages of the aircraft, which is why the MiG stays low, strikes, and gets out. Especially seeing how the test squadrons at Nellis had this information to say about the MiG should be enough proof that this is enough of a strength to be able to play on. You fight your own fight in the MiG, not anyone else's. You can keep flaunting these different kills from poorly trained pilots in foreign countries that nobody's ever heard of, but the fact of the matter is that nobody flying these sims are highly trained my the U.S. military, and the fact that we don't even have an F-15 model that's remotely high fidelity.

haha sorry, I was doing a quick flight. Going to the gym now, then to get instrument re-current so I can fly IFR with my students again. Video is live, feel free to grab a bag of popcorn and laugh at my incompetence EDIT: Also found a document basically saying that if an F-15 gets in a turning fight with a MiG-21 then the F-15 is toast. Was one of the US studies too with a captured MiG-21

Just got out of a pretty good dogfight with a 104th member in a SU-27. I should have EASILY won the dogfight, but I was dead-set on trying the R-60M out... Had a good shooting solution, but had the switch in SARH still, and as I flipped it he saw me. About 30s later I had a bad shot but took it anyway, and the missile went stupid right off the rail. Decided my last one wasn't going to hit anything and dropped it in order to be more agile and get a good guns solution. By this time the SU-27 had turned and burned, and I decided to pick up a little speed as well for the next merge. At this point, he shot 2 R-73s at me to which I rolled flared and evaded both. Right as we merge again he rudders over and gets what couldn't be more than 3 rounds into my nosecone causing my engine to quit. Moral of the story- Guns beat everything. I have it recorded if you guys want me to post it. It's kinda like flopping fishbed pt. 2 because I lost sight of him a few times only to find out he was hiding behind a canopy bar or something. It's easier to see a Skyhawk in real life than it is to see these aircraft in-game. EDIT: Flopping Fishbed 2: Return of the facepalm will be live here in a few short minutes.

Again, my disclaimers were left out: 1. Level flight 2. Aerodynamics below transonic flight But yes, this thread has run its course.

Camber and weight are two separate things. I don't want anyone confused with improper terminology, especially when that improper term has been used (incorrectly) in this discussion before. What's your point, exactly? Taken from your same article, "zero angle of attack corresponds to zero coefficient of lift." " A symmetrical wing has zero lift at 0 degrees angle of attack." The wing will still product lift at those negative AOAs in an asymmetrical cambered wing, but as mentioned before, it's not enough to keep it in the air. The wing actually still produces lift during a stall, however it's not sufficient to keep the aircraft aloft. This is the exact reason a spin occurs, because one wing is producing slightly more lift than the other. Anyway, this discussion has got extremely off-topic. As mentioned before, if the flight model is representative of the real aircraft (as Dolphin said it was), then it is, and that's that. If you'd like to discuss AOA or anything else related to flight, please shoot me a PM.

This is true, and again, I do not fully understand the instrument error of an AOA vane during transonic flight. One reason it vary well could be a normal indication. For our purposes of discussion this is not relevant, as a matter of fact, the situation you described hurts your case.

Again, AOA is the angle between the chord line and the relative wind. The only way weight effects the AOA is, with all things equal, weight is changed. Let's not confuse the conversation with weight, as it's an entirely different variable that is not immediately important to our purposes. I 100% know the aerodynamics of aircraft under Mach 1 inside and out, it's my job to know it. I understand the point that you're trying to make, but the Skyhawk absolutely does not stay aloft with an AOA of 0. Wings need a positive AOA to stay aloft, there's no way around it. Every wing needs positive AOA. It's not extremely difficult to understand, but again, leave mass out of it all, it's not relevant to this discussion. Fluid dynamics for flight is really about Bernoulli's Principle and Newton's 3rd law, both easy topics to understand. The wing would be a combination of both, the fuselage would be described with Newton's 3rd law, etc.

I was adding emphasis to what you said for others to see, I understand your view :)

Yes, I understand what a deflection shot is, and at that point you're basically just looking to hit someone with a rocket. If you decide to test this, report back with your findings. We're just saying that your chance of kill is impossibly low.

Yes, because the seeker head wouldn't be tracking him coming off the rail

That situation wouldn't work though because he would transition through the seeker head too fast, or wouldn't enter the seeker head's FOV at all.

But why would you rifle off 2-6 IR missiles with a Pk of abut 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.000? That's worse than noobs rifling 6 AIM-120s at 15nm EDIT: had to add more 0s

The AIM-120 has the targeting data linked to the missile until it's internal sensor goes active. If the missile isn't seeking anything, then it will just fly straight, it's just what it does. Even if your theory were to be correct it would have to be in a very, very small FOV and even then it wouldn't ever hit because it would pull insane G to get back on target and run out of energy, and that doesn't even matter because the enemy aircraft would have long been out of its FOV. These are just reasons I can come up with off the top of my head. It just doesn't work. +1 for the wording

At 55 seconds into your video you get launched at, , which you beam it first, however then you split-S, followed by a hard 90* turn , then another 90* turn. You could have easily beamed, then claff with a 180* turn away from the missile and keep all the potential energy of the higher altitude.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/military-aviation/22669d1287389321-fighter-performance-actual-plane-analysis-making-best-mig-21.pdf

Real fighter pilots start in an aircraft that has only 490 less HP than the P-51 had (T-6), the C172 is NOT used in training.

Weight above the wing doesn't effect where the front of the leading edge is, thus has no effect on the AOA (angle between the chord line, which is an imaginary line connecting the furthest aft part of the trailing edge with the furthest forward part of the leading edge, and the relative wind). Symmetrical wing purely refers to the shape of the wing. AOA that we're discussing has no use when flying. 0. Cg and Cl are different, and with aircraft that have a tail (all except aircraft with big canards like the Eurofighter) the Cg simply needs to be in front of the Cl.