Vedexent

Excellent stuff - really like the ETPS skin.

I think with the MiG-21 - and the Sabre - you're supposed to use nukes for this ;) So far as I know you can't do this with the F-5 - but I'm intrigued by the (limited?) CAS capabilities of the F-5. Have to admit the shot of the snake-eye deployment in the trailer made me sit up and take notice.

Su-25 will definitely "mach tuck" if you're not careful. I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to say that its counterpart - the A-10C - is more stable (I know you're not actually saying this), since the A-10C flies a lot slower. I suspect that the Su-25 handles better @ 900Kph than the A-10C does :D

Hear hear. If the F-5 isn't "Airquake" friendly, it doesn't make it useless. Just use it / design missions a bit more intelligently. As for the F-5/MiG-21 match - I suspect that the disparate skills of the pilot are going to weigh heavier than any disparate capabilities of the planes (planes don't kill people ...). I say this as a "ground pounder" who sucks at A2A - so it probably doesn't matter which airframe you'd give me in that match up. :P

Cheers, thanks :) Time to start cobbling together aircraft operations checklists for the kneeboard :)

The manuals linked here are the operational manuals for the F-5, in several variants. Not the sim manual - not a game manual - the actual aircraft manual of the real plane.

Damn - it's the same exact same doc originally linked to, and Scribd is also a pay site. I was wondering if there was a link somewhere to a copy not behind a paywall. Both Scibd and Aviologs let you read on screen.

And let's not forget the fun of high-speed runs down the Black Canyon, pulling up over the edge of dam, and skimming over Lake Mead as fast as you can push your plane :)

I actually wish that some of the fantastic community modders who have voluntarily contributed to the community did have a donate button / Patreon account somewhere. Given the hours and hours and hours of enjoyment I've gotten from their work, I think I owe Uboats and Devrim (amongst others), at least a case of beer :D

Yes ... but kind of aside from the point. The F-5 was supposed to be "less capable". The two competing ideas were "5 super capable aircraft" vs. "10 aircraft that are capable enough - but not much more" - not 5 vs. 5. I think you're right in that the institutional mindset of "bigger, faster, more sophisticated" is/was well entrenched in the U.S. military - so the "more capable" design is the one more likely to be chosen (and in this case was chosen), without considering the number side of the game. Of course, it does not hurt in the slightest that U.S. Military budgets are so ample that "fewer" aircraft of more sophisticated design does not necessarily mean a small number of aircraft. The U.S. seems to be willing to spend to get both the capabilities and the numbers. As for the F-5E - I think you're right; Northrop had switched focus to the export market by the time they reached the E variant.

Not in the physical makeup - it's more the design philosophy. ( With a healthy does of "IMHO", and "YMMV" ... ) Russian philosophy seems to be "build it just sophisticated enough to get the job done, make the parts standardized, build it ruggedly, build a lot of them". American design philosophy seems to be "build the best damn plane we can, with sophisticated bleeding-edge technology crammed into every system, and give our planes the most operational flexibility.". Compare the A-10C and the Su-25. They both have similar battlefield roles. Systemically the A-10C is way more sophisticated, and probably more flexible. Conversely it's more expensive ($US18M vs. $US11M), and more "fragile". The Su-25 is not nearly as "mission flexible" (consider that the navigation WPs are all pre-programmed on the ground, and can't be changed in flight), but can effortlessly run out of broken, debris strewn airstrips, which would make an A-10C very unhappy. You can also blow out an engine, and belly land the Frogfoot, and have it combat ready inside a week. Neither design philosophy is better than the other; they're just different. One approach maximizes quality and sophistication over numbers; one relies on rugged, lower tech, standardization of components, and weight of numbers. --- The F-5, was designed as a smaller, lower cost, nimble, rugged (I've seen footage of the F-5 landing on grass strip runways), with parts and armaments which were designed to be simple to maintain, and were standardized with other existing weapons systems. It's relative low cost, and ease of use, made it a natural for export; nations which didn't have the huge budgets of the U.S.A.F could afford to buy it, and run it - without having to build a large support infrastructure for it. It's small, easy to run and maintain, and has "just enough" systems to get it's job done. Which design philosophy does that sound like? :) --- Note - I'm talking about the early variants of the F-5, mid-to-late 20th century. The products of more modern upgrade programs - like the Brazilian FAB / Elbit Systems upgrade programs - may be a horse of different color, entirely.

Indeed! How many test pilots get to endure two different kinds of crashes (air-frame and system) :D

I'm a huge fan of the Russian design philosophy when it comes to aircraft (and personally would love to see DCS:Su-25SM hit the store). That's one reason I'm really interested in the F-5E (apart from the fact that my country used, and manufactured a variant of them): it's a mid-20th century Western fighter that embraces a Russian design philosophy. So far as I know, the only one that does so. It's probably why it never caught on in the US Military (neither better, nor worse, just a really different "oddball" approach from the perspective of the rest of the armed forces - sort of the same way that some people hate the A-10). If you like the Russian aircraft, it may be a better fit than you think :)

Aviologs doesn't charge, per se - you can still screen read them on the site, but yeah, to download them you need to be a registered member - and that's for the whole library of manuals - not like you have to fork over $ for each manual. You've got a link to a free downloadable basic flight operations manual, which is great - but it doesn't contain the weapons systems details and deployment procedures. If anyone can find a freely downloadable version of that one, that'd be great.

and this: F-5E/F Tiger II Aircrew Nonnuclear Weapons Delivery Manual

F-5E Flight manual can be found here: 1F-5E-1 F-5E Flight Manual It's worth reading the procedures for normal and emergency procedures, and familiarizing yourself with the cockpit layout. Other F-5 variants manuals can be found here: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii.html

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4064

If not, it looks like this gentleman has most of it worked out already :)

That's a really good idea.

Except our "lollies" have changed - or at least there's more kinds of them :) Personally, $50 wouldn't get me a very good bottle of Scotch (my lollie of choice ;) ). Guess I'd better buy another module instead :D

Images of the control being activated, and the rotor flying apart ;)

-

All you modders are awesome! Rep awarded; thank you very much :)

Heard from whom? I've heard that Prince didn't die naturally, he was killed by Elvis (at the order of the Reptilian Queen). Sources matter. And paying close attention to what those sources are actually saying matters. In any case - it's buy now (20% off) or buy when it releases (100% price), fly sometime in July (potentially with some delays that always accompany pretty much any project). No "forced" wait for which anyone can show any compelling evidence.

If I understand correctly, you can pay 80% now, or 100% in two months. Up to you.