A.S

@admins: delete (post moved by myself - offtopic)

indeed, enoying "overbank" ghosts.....

Any jet can "kill" any jet ......... DACT

cool movie:thumbup:

Right. What suprised me was, those guys have 100hours and faced Pilots with 2000-3000 flighthours. That alone speaks.

haha, that´s cool :thumbup:

Read Robert Shaw Fighter Combat page 31-61 (coming back to post 7 above, what are chaffs actually doing in real, when, when not, why......etc) additional: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/chaff.htm

Just speaking about what is wrong in 1.12...or what would be right...in both cases i could fill pages. The problem with developing or coding such simulated environment is that in order to make it right, you cant just go by ideal theoretical values or approximate evaluations , you have to understand the dynamics, the principles -and if possible- facts through records of the combat itself in first place ! THEN you can approach simulating it. With 2.0 FAQ they have proven, that they have understood the lack in current state ( see 2.0 FAQ), but how much they will be able to fix things in right direction without rewriting everything again....we will see. At least we can hope for more logic and reasonable combat scenarios or gameplay...whatever.

"...i dont know what weapons they will use in ww3, but i do know that they will use stones and sticks in ww4 .." quote: Einstein

AIM-120B AMRAAM General Info: Origin = U.S.A. Type = BVR Missile Manufacture = Hughes IOC = 1991 Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates; active radar terminal phase Sensor Type = Active radar Sensor Range = 8nm Intercept = Lead pursuit Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV. Performance: Range = 40nm (max. 75nm) Speed = Mach 4 Fuel = 117.3lbs Lethal Radius = 40ft Dimensions: Length = 12ft Diameter = 7in Fin Span = 25in Weight = 345lbs Radar: Range = 9nm Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec Beam width = 4 deg Max scan angle = 54 deg Sensor Range = 8nm Warhead: 45lbs High explosive Fuse = Variable Description: The AIM-120 AMRAAM was developed in the 1980s to replace the AIM-7 Sparrow. One of the chief disadvantages of the Sparrow missile was that the launching fighter had to maintain a radar lock on the target for the entire flight of the missile. Besides giving the target plenty of opportunity to defeat the missile by breaking the radar lock, it also left the shooter vulnerable to counterattack since his maneuvers were constrained while he maintained a lock on a single bandit. In addition, a SARH missile needs a fairly strong radar return to guide on, which is guaranteed to give away an attack on any Radar Warning Receiver- (RWR) equipped target. Part of the solution to this problem was to put an entire radar set into the missile itself, but since the range of any radar is limited by the size of its antenna, simply using the missile's own radar would diminish the potential range considerably. These problems were solved in the AMRAAM by both putting a miniature active radar into the missile nose for use in the missile's terminal phase, and also using a datalink from the launching fighter's Fire Control Radar (FCR) to provide midflight course corrections. Furthermore, the shooter doesn't need to continually paint the target with his radar to fire the AMRAAM, but can be in a more stealthy Track While Scanning (TWS) mode. AIM-120C-4 AMRAAM General Info: Origin = U.S.A. Type = BVR Missile Manufacture = Hughes IOC = 1991 Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates; active radar terminal phase Sensor Type = Active radar Sensor Range = 8nm Intercept = Lead pursuit Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV. Performance: Range = 37nm (max. 68nm) Speed = Mach 4 Fuel = 117.3lbs Lethal Radius = 40ft Dimensions: Length = 12ft Diameter = 7in Fin Span = 25in Weight = 345lbs Radar: Range = 9nm Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec Beam width = 4 deg Max scan angle = 54 deg Pulse radar; Doppler radar Sensor Range = 8nm Warhead: 45lbs High explosive Fuse = Variable Description: The differences between the Aim-120B and Aim-120C-4 are as follows: The wings are now clipped with allows for carriage of the Aim-120C in weapons bays for aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor and the JSF. The Guidance was upgraded to the WGU-44/B standard and the warhead was improved to the WDU- 41/B warhead. The engine was switched from a sustain/boost to a pure boost design. While it does cause the missile to loose some of it's range, it allows the missile to get out onto it's target quicker as the missile accelerates quicker than the previous versions that used the boost/sustain engine. AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM General Info: Origin = U.S.A. Type = BVR Missile Manufacture = Hughes IOC = 2000 Guidance = Inertial with mid-course updates; active radar terminal phase Sensor Type = Active radar Sensor Range = 8nm Intercept = Lead pursuit Platforms = F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, EF-2000, and Tornado ADV. Performance: Range = 43nm (max. 82nm) Speed = Mach 4 Fuel = 127.3lbs Lethal Radius = 40ft Dimensions: Length = 12ft Diameter = 7in Fin Span = 25in Weight = 345lbs Radar: Range = 9nm Sweep rate = 11 deg/sec Beam width = 4 deg Max scan angle = 54 deg Pulse radar; Doppler radar Sensor Range = 8nm Warhead: 45lbs High explosive Fuse = Variable Description: The Aim-120C-5 offers the following improvments over the Aim-120C-4 Has a slightly larger motor (pure boost) in the new WPU-16/B propulsion secion A new shorter WCU-28/B control section with compressed electronics and ECCM upgrades. Deliveries began in July of 2000. Personal Add here: Important to now for 1.12 or 2.0 ... Right know the 120 seaker in 1.12 scans 90deg off boresight (wow) and that in its "own way" ...the real deal has a 25deg off boresight scan (+/- 25 deg = 50deg) in a scaningcone of 5 deg .....that should be fixed. A maddoged should not see more then your boresight circle in your hud, which it doesnt right now. Not to forget about slave and bore modes...but that s another topic. Another thing is the energy conservation lead intercept alghoryhtm (not) used right now ...the real deal will not go straigt to the shortest lead impact point as we see it right now, it would morelikely "loop" and calculate its best energy Pk to lead impact point or terminal stage. The internal seaker (real) depending on situation goes active (pitbull) at eat 2,5 to 12nm. etc etc.....GG your turn...lol ( i save going deeper, dunno what you guys have done though)

yeah..i guess so....but i really wonder about the elec-independence (backup-ability) ...i know the 22ski can make good barbeque itself...but does it have barbeque gloves ? :D HA...found a good read on that one: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/apjemp.htm

http://www.teamcombatleague.ca <<< this ?

Me wonders how T-50 and F-22 perform under EMP impulses ...(nuke save) The russians are known to built "ray-save" jets .....maybe it be nuke-based or other weapons..... ...so here comes the question: ..which one is easier to "grill" :D

.... @GG: The last point might lead to a necessity of over-modelling missiles, since a vPilot will not fear for his life - so you have to punish him for not flying realistically. This is a result of simulation that we must all cope with:I like that. @Tek: hat gets most realistic in Lomac is the teamwork in my opinionRight. The best moments of Lockon are either pure 1vs1 fights, or really well coordinated teamworks. Both underline the colors still given in a sim and distinguish the tactical possibilites. Pitty enough, those things dont happen to much, and we are used to have a quick "burns" on online servers. But thats not everything. Surely enough most are also frustrated about few aspects of the sim itself, which sometimes do not allow proper fights or teamwork, and you cant blame always the players doing just that what works rather then that what should be realistic. They just addapt what "works". Its a long way regocnizing, that you can use this game also as simulation environmnent, but the goal should ALWAYS be realism. Its the learning path/curve what is fun and what fullfills with sense of achievement, not the "results".....at least for me.

i see it coming ..."what are AS liftlines" ....:D

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666. The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the frontline in the British army for the last 300 years. The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides." The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose". Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels . The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies, just in case. And at a local level... New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!". Due to continuing defense cutbacks (the airforce being a squadron of spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of escalation, which is "Shit, I hope Australia will come and rescue us". In the event of invasion, New Zealanders will be asked to gather together in a strategic defensive position called "Bondi". Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Three more escalation levels remain, "Crikey!', "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level .

rofl :megalol: besides .....it is definitly not "unbalance" im afraid of ...i fly all planes anyways and can deal with given circumtances.. BUT ..i NEED consistency !!!!!! in that what is happening according to that, what im doing ... no random game-dynamic-specific wieerd outcomes in BVR scenarios...me out.

..we all need "something" to hang our hopes in ..right ? :smilewink:

this is spirit :pilotfly:

This Thread ...... :megalol:

ALL CREDITS OF THIS POST GO TO radicaldude1234 Im just posting it here, becuase it was interesting sourece: http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17216 Hey guys, I'm taking a class on aerodynamics at the college that I'm at and I thought I'd take a shot at analyzing this thing. Now, there will be no doubt that there are some who are arguing that I should be deving or something, but since this helps me study anyways, I'll give this a go. Now, I'm no aerospace engineer (mechanical), so the more engineers who jump in and correct anything that I say the better. Basically I'm going to gather the general characteristics of the thing like lift coefficients, drag, cruise speed, manueverability, etc... I'm going to base my numbers off of this 3 view from the Russian site Paralay, which looks pretty accurate Based on the image and info, here are the preliminary dimensions Length: 21m (68.8ft) Span: 15.14m (49.66ft) Height: 5.023m (16.48ft) Empty Weight (wiki): 18,500kg (40785lb) Loaded Weight: 26,000kg (57,320lb) Max TO weight: 37,000kg (81,570lb) Thrust: 2x 175KN Engines (38,500 lbf each) Total Thrust: 350KN (77,000 lbf) Wing Root Chord: 6.81m Tip Chord: 1.64m Leading Edge Sweep: 46.94 deg Trailing Edge Weep: -10.21 deg Aerodynamic Sweep (the sweep that matters): 24.24 deg Wing Area (Wings Only): 35.37m^2 (380.6ft^2) Wing Area (Wings and fuselage area between wings: 35.37m^2 + 46.34m^2 = 81.71m^2 (879.07ft^2) Aerodynamic Observations from Planform: Max Shock Cone (Supersonic Shockwave) angle: 26.93 degrees from centerline Since the shockwave cannot touch any part of the structure, we can find maximum mach by: Max Mach = 1/sin(max shockwave angle) = 1/sin(26.93) = 2.208 mach All these were extrapolated from this drawing (note: divide distances by .42 to get meters) Next post, I'll try and do some hand calculations of Lift and Drag, then put the planform through a CFD analysis and see how it goes! . . . There are certain ways to measure reflection, scatter and the like, but it is currently out of my league at this point. That, and even if I did find out, some things are best left unsaid on the internet, if you know what I mean. Some other observations as I am trying to get the wing characteristics simulated in the meantime: The center of gravity, which can be extrapolated from the landing gear location, is surprisingly forward. The redline represents the probable CG location. The green line represents the calculated mean aerodynamic chord, or MAC. Center of gravity is usually located along a percentage of this line; around 25-30% for stable civil aircraft and 40-50% for FBW aircraft. Now, we know the CG can't go any backwards because the airplane will tip back and stay there on landing if that were so. So the Red line represents the furthest rear the CG can be. Since the location is in fact FORWARD of the MAC leading edge, this leads me to conclude that the clearly defined "wing" does not provide the large majority of the total lift. In this way, the aerodynamics of the T-50 differ from the F-22. Based the F-22's landing gear, the Raptor's CG is more typical of a conventional design and the CG is at ~35-40% of the MAC. With the T-50, since the CG is so forward on the conventional wing, my hypothesis is that the areas that look like strakes and the area between the engines generate significant lift and should be treated more as part of the wing. Also, the layout seems to have more lifting body characteristics than the norm for both Western and Eastern fighters. Given the layout of the Su-27 family, with its widely spaced engines and generously large strakes, it does make sense that Sukhoi would continue in this direction, though.

Tuff one....where and when happened that GG ..you got a link for me? PS: and of course, turning "tighter" (radius) does not nessarily mean you win a dogfight. If that conclusion would be true, then a sptifire "would kill" a Flanker. Each frame has its own regime area. As far for lockon, you dont wanna end up in a scissor with the 15 vs the su-27,where the Flanker has the better cards, but as su-27 you surely dont wanna end up in a 2cirlce fight vs the 15, where the 15 dominates ...etc etc......and many more things. Here a short demo (just one round) http://www.as-private.com/ACMI/f15vsSu27demo.rar showing a F-15 fight vs a Su-27. The Su-27 pilot in that case was RUS, an excellent Lockon Pilot, also very skilled in IL-2, and in my opinion someone with more understanding in BFM then those "always merge low, spiral up spiral down pilot ones" ....BUT the F15 (so the Mig29) can defeat the su-27 if you know what to avoid and where your regimes are. Surely the Su-27 will try to get you in "his game", but as F15 pilot you also have "your area" where you can dominate.

thats why you should never fly it. !! really dont !! :music_whistling: