Poopskadoop

It's interesting; I quickly compared some specifications on wikipedia between the La-5FN and La-7, and it seems like the La-5FN has slightly better performance in most categories. Larger range, top speed, time to altitude, rate of climb, horsepower, better power-to-mass ratio. I imagine these stats don't tell the whole story, so I'm curious why there is such a discrepancy.

Finally! Finally a Soviet aircraft that can actually compete with the other WW2 fighters. My favorite is the Yak-3, even if it had short endurance, but an La-7 is probably the better choice. I flew both of these in preference over any other fighters in... uh... you know, that other thing. If the story is true, I can't wait to engage two confused mustangs. Apparently, Ivan Kozhedub shot down 2 mustangs who mistook him for a German plane. Don't know if that really ever happened. Also, I doubt I can fly like Kozhedub, but I'm certainly eager to give it a shot.

Yeah, I don't understand that reasoning either--doesn't make sense. I suspect the real reason is because, unlike the F-14, F-18, and F-16, the F-15C has been in the game forever and most people are probably satisfied enough by the simplified model, which is by no means horrible. Seems like a lot of effort to sell a plane many less informed buyers will see and think "don't I already have that?" However, if we were to get a professional F-15C, we need a newer variant flanker too, like an SM. Why? Because shut up, that's why. RedFor needs a little love every now and then.

The F-15C was part of the original Lock On repertoire, hence it was modeled like the other aircraft. For my part, I disagree. I don't think we need another teen fighter so soon. What I would love over anything else is a professionally done, slightly updated Flanker. An SM? SM2? SM3? I don't really care, just something. Then you can have your F-15C or E and whatever else... Of course the reality is we'll probably see a fully modeled F-22 before another Flanker.

I can perform a coordinated turn... but I tend to get a bit sloppy with that during combat. Vertical, huh? Alright, I'll try more of that. The Dora is definitely not forgiving of sudden stick movement. In a way it reminds me of the match up between the MiG-15 and F-86. I'm a MiG pilot, and I had the hardest time learning how to fight the Sabre until I eased up on the controls and took the fight vertical. You'd think some of that would have carried over, but jets are too different to begin with. And yes, I know, you're right; I've gotta get my ass online.

After having flown the 109-K extensively in single player, I tried out the Dora for free. I was very excited to try what I had assumed was the Luftwaffe's most potent fighter. Perhaps that assumption was mistaken from the beginning, but I just can't seem to utilize it properly. In the instant action mission for the Persian Gulf map that starts you head on against a P-51, I haven't been able to get a single kill out 30 or 40+ tries that wasn't simply a lucky head on joust. Conversely, using the Bf 109-K, I can beat the Mustang every single time. I can always out-turn it and get on his tail. Always. Okay, so I see it has quite a long wingspan, and so I assume it isn't meant to dogfight the way a 109 can, but really it just seems like the turning performance is horrendous. Meant to be a higher altitude fighter, I guess? Regardless, I simply cannot get behind the Mustang, ever. Yes, the D-9 is much faster and climbs much better, but how do I use this to my advantage in getting behind the enemy? The P-51 is no slouch and will always turn to face me, and at that point it's whoever is lucky enough in those split seconds to put rounds in the other's face. Not a clean way of fighting. The damn thing just won't turn. It loses control very quickly around 320 km/h in a sustained turn. I'm just curious to hear from some veterans of the Dora on what I might be doing wrong and how they engage P-51s. Should I forget about trying to fight in the horizontal plane? Should I just not be pulling on the stick as much? Moreover, why would I fly this thing over a bf-109? I'm just no good at booming and zooming, I guess.

Okay, good to know. To be clear, I haven't booted up the newest release of that other sim in a very long time, though I had my fun with it back in the day. I've always considered ED's work to be far more professional, which is why I'd love to see the WWII modules become more robust. I hear there are things being worked on in that direction.

Err... Is it taboo to discuss? And which one are we talking about, to be clear?

That's good to know. :lol: I may give it a shot. I've just gotten a bit tired of managing complex avionics systems and missiles.

I wasn't paying much attention to the first two gauges, to be honest. Speed was around 400km/h. I was ignoring those indicators mostly because I've heard the bf 109 has an automatic governor, and because I've just started using the plane... And because I normally fly jets... And because I was being lazy. Excuses, Excuses. But basically it seems that I can reduce throttle to very near the first maker above idle and accelerate at level flight from nearly any speed to around 450km/h. I don't accelerate as fast, mind you, but I've never experienced something like that.

Alright, maybe I should dip my toes into multiplayer. It's just quite intimidating considering most will be veterans and I will have to unlearn some bad habits that fighting the AI has taught me. I suppose I can't really say I know what I'm doing until I unlearn those habits, though. Do the servers require normandy maps or asset packs?

So, like many others, I've tried out the Bf-109 for free and am on the fence about purchasing it. Firstly, I'll say I like the plane quite a lot and I have no trouble whatsoever shooting down the AI (vs P-51s and Spits), which is sort of what worries me. I understand that in order to get the full experience out of this thing, I'll want the Normandy map, WWII assets, and the campaign. But if the AI is always going to be this predictable for the WWII modules, I'm not sure it's worth bothering with. I haven't played it in a while, but I remember Il-2 giving me more challenge. I suppose I could always play online, but I'm not ready to be that committed. Unless someone who has played the campaigns with the assets can suggest otherwise, there doesn't seem to be enough single player meat here. Perhaps someone can convince me? I will say I enjoy the simulation far more than the flight sim "Stalingrad," but the AI in that game seems to provide more of a challenge as well. The bf-109 in dcs feels great! It's a joy to fly. Now I just want a little "game" along with the "sim." Also, unrelated, but is it normal for these aircraft to accelerate in level flight with the throttle at 15%?

Not sure. Sounds like you've done your homework, so it's hard to tell. Try to keep the TDC cursor on the target. Double check your antenna elevation. Only things I can think of.

I'm going to have to try this out. I started a thread not long ago that dealt with this (among other) issues. The consensus I received from that thread was that it should not be possible. Now I'm not so sure. The behavior of the sparrow is so erratic that sometimes I can't tell if I lose lock due to something I did myself, something the enemy does, or something I am misunderstanding. Whatever the truth is, I hope it gets simulated properly. If it's not possible, then this is a bug. Of course, there was also a lot of conversation about the fact that you should not find yourself in a position that requires this capability. Unless we're talking about AIM-120s using TWS, the hornet should not be engaging multiple targets simultaneously.

I meant in reality, not dcs.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second. I'm only asking the question so I can better understand how and why things are done the way they are. My posts don't show it, but I've around here a while, and I always respect your input. :thumbup:

While we're at it, if we're discussing tactics, does anyone know of good a resource for what real pilots would do in the kind of scenarios I brought up. Or WVR in general? My inclination would be to abandon the sparrow target immediately and try to dispatch the closer targets with sidewinders as fast as I possibly can. Start popping flares, of course. But where to fly, I wonder? Would it be wise or unwise to hit the deck? Or maybe, depending on which direction everyone is going, to pull away from the engagement if you have an energy advantage until you can bring it back around to reestablish a shot from distance?

Fine, I agree in principle. I only wonder, purely from a technical standpoint, how difficult of a thing it really would have been to add. If it's a matter of a few lines of code, I don't see why it would hurt. If it's a lot more than that, then I agree.

Would't hurt though, would it?

Who, me personally or people in general? As for what scenario, I listed a few in my posts above. Maybe. Probably even. But maybe not. If your enemy has also made a mistake, you'll be able to take advantage of it quickly. That's why I'm saying it's a contingency. Sure, but I've read about more than one engagement where one side or the other got caught off guard. Even in reality, I highly doubt everything always goes according to plan. And to have at least some back up is better than nothing, even if you know your chances are slim. There's always a chance your counter-measures will work, especially against dissimilar opponents. Wouldn't that highly depend on who and what you're going up against? It could be some MiG equipped with R-60s. Maybe they managed to evade detection by some dumb luck but they've also lost SA. At least I would still have some kind of chance to kill my original target and the new target both. Sparrow ranges can quickly turn to sidewinder ranges before the original (or second) sparrow has time to hit its target. I'm not talking about Super hornets outfitted with AIM-120Ds and all the detection support in the world. I'm talking about our F-18C outfitted with sparrows.

Perhaps, but let's just say shit happens :doh:. I'm sure that it can happen to anyone. Maybe one bogey hid their approach using ground features. Maybe your wingman screwed up. Maybe your sparrows, as they tend to, decide they just don't feel like doing their job anymore. Maybe your target decides to take the scenic route to avoid your sparrow while his own wingman closes in. Having a fall back can't be considered useless. What's the saying? "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

It would allow simultaneous BVR and WVR engagement using different seeker types. One of your targets may be far away and require a SARH missile, but suddenly you notice a bogey you missed or that your wingman failed to destroy appear WVR. Things don't always go according to plan in aerial combat, especially if everyone starts going in different directions at high speeds. This would be a useful fall back that lets you defend yourself or someone else without having to give up your radar target.

I might be wrong, but IIRC, if you switch weapons away from the sparrow, it will lose guidance. I'll have to double check. As for the FCS system, doesn't the IR missile do most of the work and calculations? The plane only tells the seeker where to look, and the seeker head reports back whether or not it has acquired a thermal signature. When it has, the plane simply says "yes, launch at whatever that is." Once it's off the rails, the plane's computer doesn't have to do anything. Take, for example, the Su-25. It has no radar and I'm pretty sure its FCS has no provisions to track aerial targets (I'm not counting using the vikhr against air), but it can still launch an R-60 or R-73 in longitudinal mode using the seeker head. Again, it's quite likely I may be over simplifying things, but one thing I'm certain about is that I can find great utility for this ability. Consider a merge scenario where you have launched on a target with a sparrow which then begins to evade in another direction. Meanwhile, another bogey is closing on your wingman or some other target, maybe even a strike aircraft trying to fly past you to reach a ground target you are trying to protect. They will be within range for a sidewinder, but I can't stop guiding my sparrow to send one their way. I've found myself wishing for this ability many times in various engagements. If it's not realistic, then it's not, but I would be curious to know why that's the case. Seems more like a software rather than hardware problem.

It does go to STT, but the sparrow needs that feedback the whole way to the target.

Yes, unfortunately I tend to lead with an ER in a BVR scenario. I just wish I could fire the ER and let the computer track the target while I switch to a mode that will let me queue up an ET or 73 on a different target while we close in. I suppose the Su-27 has the advantage in this regard because an ET can be fired from a fair distance. But the F-18 has the same issue. I would be silly not to fire a sparrow first, yet there is no provision for queuing a sidewinder on another approaching target, supposing the seeker head is within range to acquire it. I'm just not sure why this is a limitation. Considering IR missiles are autonomous, I can't imagine it would be that much more work for the plane's computer.