Buzz313th
-
Posts
228 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Buzz313th
-
I'm ok with hypothetical as well.. It's only a game. Might be interesting to get some fictional aircraft based completely on theoretical concepts that are proven technology.
-
I like the gunpods... Two 30mm and a 20mm all at the same time would be "Sick"...
-
reported F-16 Agm-65 Maverick crosshair disappearing with 0x MSAA
Buzz313th replied to Shiny's topic in Bugs and Problems
Not true, at least for me. Unless I maintain 512 or higher, then the next time I boot up DCS I lose the mav MFD symbology. So I just accepted the fact that I have to maintain 512, or switch to 256 after starting DCS and switch back to 512 before shutting it off, or I have to switch and clear shaders and restart. All a simple workaround for a development bug that at some point hopefully will be looked at. I don't mind jumping through hoops. So to be clear.. If I switch to 256, clear shaders and start DCS.. Only the first time I restart do I get good mav mfd's. If I leave it at 256, the next time I start DCS it's borked. -
Furthermore, we know the "E's" engines are rated at higher thrust than the "C's", but at what altitude? Engines are designed to perform best at a particular point in the flight envelope that matches the aircrafts intended mission profile. I would guess that the "E's" engines are designed to perform best at medium to low altitude. This educated guess is due to the addition of the CFT's, more gas needed for the "E's" designed mission profile as a striker, not a mission where there is any need to loiter, unlike a CAP. The "E" was designed to strike a predefined target and then get the hell out. This makes me believe that the "E" was designed to go low and fast on ingress and egress burning loads of gas after wing tanks are dropped. The "C's" engines are probably tuned for performance at higher altitude. How might this affect the difference in performance between the "C" and "E" in the "C's" designed mission profile? Even if you matched the two aircraft's at the same takeoff weight, the "E" without CFT's will have less gas than the "C", and with a higher burn rate. You can argue that most of the added empty weight of the "E" is probably engines. This means that the CG might have traveled aft, but possibly negated by a heavier radar on the nose, more avionics in the bay, plus the extra pilot and life support equipment, possibly moving the CG forward within designed weight and balance. So now we have potentially more weight at the tail and at the nose of the aircraft. With most of the weight added as far away from the CG as you can get, what do you think this does to the pitch authority of the "E" compared to the "C"? If the "E" pilot pulls harder to get the same pitch rate at the same weight as the "C", then what happens to the lift to drag ratio as the instantaneous alpha spikes on the "E" higher than it would in the "C" for the same maneuver? What about if done at FL350 where the air is super thin and outside of the "E's" best engine performance? Maybe a larger loss of velocity for the "E"? Then the "E" pilot pushes the throttle into burner using more gas than the "C" pilot, plus the "E" is slower after the turn. If all this happens at altitude during BVR, then the "E" starts losing kinetic energy, burns even more gas and AMRAAM range drops as the "E" pilot loses the initiative. What about during a visual engagement? With all due respect, you make a very good argument, but you're only looking at it from the surface. We know very little of the real specs.. Best bet to answer this question is to hopefully get a true answer from a test pilot who has flown both models. Personally, from the little I understand about aviation, I would assume, the performance difference between the "C" and "E" in the "C's" mission profile is greater than we might think.
-
So how much difference do you think 3000 lbs makes on a given aoa throughout the flight envelope? How about at altitude? If there is a substantial relative change in aoa, how much difference do you think it might make regarding aerodynamics? And if aerodynamics changes, to add just 10% drag in level flight somewhere in the envelope, then what happens when that increase in induced drag is increased as the pilot loads the aircraft up in a turn? How much of a difference do you think an increase of 10% of weight makes to critical aoa? The decrease in performance of increased weight is exponential as G load increases and as pressure altitude drops. The C does its best work up high and if it closes to the merge it works best around 8g with brief pulls to 9G I think people are assuming that 3000lbs, about 10% increase in empty weight is not enough to affect aerodynamics.
-
Is this a hunch?
-
That's a great article.. Hey Razbam, have you seen this article? It's time to start figuring out a way. LOL
-
It doesn't need to because it's primary design adaptation was not to be our air superiority fighter, the F-22 owns that role. Just like the F-15C before it. Just like the F-15E is our premier "MudMover". I doubt the F-22 was "Excused" from having the "9X" and the JHMCS simply because they didn't see the need for the 22 to close to the merge. Lets not forget the thrust vectoring nozzles on the 22 as well. Read on below regarding why the 22 might be limited with the "9X".... I do believe that for the Aim9x or any "Heater" for that matter to be effective, that the "IR" seeker on the nose of the missile needs to be slewed to the IR source for a lock. This means that to get a lock, the seeker would need an unobstructed view of the IR source. With the 22 and 35 carrying most of their weapons in the bays, to get a lock (Target designation) for a heater outside of the radar gimble range (Off Boresight) would require the heater to be lowered outside of the bay, or mounted externally before a lock can be achieved. With that being said, I highly doubt that the 22 and obviously the 35 don't have the full ability to use the "9x" or the helmet. I think it's just a matter of what gets put on the aircraft for a particular mission. I think I heard that both aircraft can mount external pylons for weapons, I don't know if either of the two aircraft have the ability to lower or expose missiles from the bays before they take a shot. I would guess that they cannot, since the physical engineering used to lower a weapon from the bay would take up precious space that can be used to carry more weapons. Considering the HMCS is not only a targeting device, but also an SA device, I highly doubt the 22 drivers aren't wearing JHMCS. But I do appreciate your tenacity on trying to get me say in so many words that nowadays, systems are more important than performance... Bravo...
-
LOL, we would like to assume the "EX" might match the performance of the "C", but more likely it won't and wasn't designed to do so. I'm guessing it's primary design goal is as a Missile Gun for a remote aircraft doing the designation, tracking and missile guidance.
-
Thanks for posting that link. Will give it a read a bit later.. Cheers
-
I never heard of this, please explain. Not following you, please explain. I heard this as well. But the foundational point they made about (E-M) theory is arguably the biggest design consideration for all air superiority fighter development since.
-
In regards to systems, then that's fair. But not replacing the execution part (Flying). As far as I know, Weapons school students and some international invitees to the NTTR get the opportunity to fly against the "Red Hats", this "Might" mean they are flying against the latest Russian, Chinese and European Gen 4 planes. And this has been going on for a handful of years with the best pilots we can dig up flying those aggressors. The "Blue" militaries do a fabulous job teaching our pilots what to expect and how to win against the most relevant equipment. True That's what they said about the WWII fighter pilot ideology in the late 40's to early 50's. Then mistakes were made when they didn't listen to them in the early 60's. Then the Fighter Mafia helped set them straight. With the unwillingness to let go of the F-15C until they had to, the development of the F-22 and now the development and delivery of the F-15EX as a support air superiority fighter to the 22, it seems to me that they won't make the same mistake again.
-
Experienced pilots who fly these types will disagree with that opinion. (From comments I have read or listened to in interviews) Most responses came from the idea that "Energy is life" and that the pilot who manages it better will win because all "systems" can be countered. This was the foundational ideology of the "Fighter Mafia" Yet to be proven.
-
No matter how stealthy you are, how far you can see, how well you can communicate and how solid your SA is...... You still need the tools (Flight characteristics) to maintain initiative throughout the entire engagement. And the F15C in A2A did that better than anything else out there during it's time as a frontline asset.
-
F15C's were getting old and things were cracking. Maint costs to keep them airworthy was getting very expensive and flight cycles getting longer. They were becoming cost ineffective. Plus, political kickbacks from contractors needed to be reestablished. The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the Missile truck F-15EX working together in a "Buddy BVR Handoff" engagement is the next best thing to "Fighting on your own terms". To get back on track with the topic.. IMHO, the F15C is a needed FF module in DCS because the F-15E by design can't fill it's shoes.
-
Unfortunately, at almost twice the cost as well. And they probably would have continued using the "C", but airframes were getting old and maintenance costs high.. Not to mention contract kickbacks for Gen5 and the F-15EX started to come in to play. Too bad we can't pull the CFT's off the Razbam "E" to test your theory.
-
But the F16 doesn't have the fuel nor the MRM missile capacity to be as effective as an air superiority fighter as the F15C. I'm guessing that the cycle time between CAP flights for an all F16 air superiority fleet versus an all F15C fleet would have to be doubled to maintain the same level of air superiority.
-
Energy state and the ability to maintain it is everything once committed to a BVR and WVR engagement. Especially when the goal is to "Only fight on your terms".
-
True... But... The radar only allowed it to "see" at a greater distance. The "C's" kinematics and energy efficiency allowed it to leverage that extra time and distance against a BVR opponent or opposing flight. Not to mention, it gave the Eagle "C" more options to commit or extend as it approached the merge.
-
The air superiority capability historically demonstrated by the "C" has more to do with it's flight characteristics than it's switches and buttons.
-
Very fair and I admit, maybe I was a too harsh on the Phantom. I was just writing something along the lines of maneuverability in BVR and the "C" being able to maintain a higher energy state at altitude as it cycles between defensive and offensive in the BVR engagement, but you beat me to it..
-
correct as is Can't get the F-15C to spin...
Buzz313th replied to greyseal494's topic in F-15C for DCS World
There are interviews and books where retired F15 pilots talk about the spin characteristics of the eagle. I'm sure just reaching out to them will give you the unclassified data needed to model this better. I spent an hour last night trying to learn what triggers the code in the FC3 Eagle to spin without asymmetric throttle and the best method I found to get it to depart was with a nose higher than 45 degrees and get it into a tailslide with neutral stick and full rudder or full cross control. This flight profile put the eagle into a high yaw rate AND put airspeed below 30-50 KCAS, which felt like it triggered something that started a simulated model of departed flight, which resulted in a flat spin. Recovery early in the spin can be accomplished by opposite rudder neutral stick. As yaw rate increases, asymmetric thrust is needed to recover. During my attempt to spin the Eagle.. I could not get it to depart with the nose between level and 45 degrees high. Accelerated stalls and shallow spin entry resulted in what felt like the onset of a spin, but the yaw rate would dampen, forward velocity would increase and the airframe would casually recover even though I was doing everything I could to get it to depart. Later on in the test flight, I started working on recovery of unusual attitudes and in a nose low self induced "Washing Machine", I picked my head up and I was in a flat spin. I honestly have no idea what attitude I put the simulated F15C in that caused it to depart nose low. So it will spin, it will depart, but based on what I have read, it seems it shouldn't be that difficult to get it there. -
Who does not want to fly a Legend? The F4 is a multirole pig. It did nothing really well. As a matter of fact, it wasn't really good at anything; thank god for the skill of our pilots or we woulda lost more F4's. But, people are lining up to purchase the module. Why?.. Because it's too F-ing cool and an icon in air combat history... Now lets talk about the F15C. It is almost at that "Phantom Too F-ing Cool" status and it is the AIr Superiority Master of the modern era. Nobody can resist that, except the people who don't "Care about air to air". Plus, from the perspective of a DCS player who spends most of their time in dogfight or A2A servers, the F15C is a no brainer. Release of a FF F15C will probably hurt other module sales within the first couple months of release. If I was on the fence of buying a F14 or F4 and I heard the Eagle was being released soon. I would wait and get the eagle. My current ownership of the F16 or F18 would have no impact on me buying a FF Eagle C. My normal morning rant for development of my childhood dream. Cheers
-
Which is precisely why the USAF flew both models during the same period.
-
Great point posting that poll. Combined with the other poll, they clearly represent the want for a FF F15C. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that, if a developer made a well done FF Eagle C, it would easily be in the top 3 of most popular FF modules, and my gut feeling is that it could contend for the top slot in module sales.
