Ktulu2

While lift is proportional to AoA, the coefficient that determines the effect of AoA on lift (CM or C alpha) depends to a reasonable amount on the wing type (even on basic NACA 00XX wings) , so that's not only the wing loading's effect and you can only get rough ideas by visual analysis. (This is especially true on non-100% symetric wings, like many fighters, AND is the case of the F-35 (NACA 64-206)) And than, you have to consider the fact the F-35 could have 100% internal, while the F-16s were in internal too (at least, in the pics i've seen) so that trows off the WL estimation by A LOT. I've seen pics where the -35 has the same AoA as vipers.

Given the good high AoA characteristics of the F-35 from what I've heard, that could give it something the viper doesn't have. My point wasn't that WL is 200% meaningless, just that until you get your hand on a chart or some decent info, looking at the bird won't tell you about a good FCS or optimisation.

Well, the payload will indeed affect the performances of a lighter aircraft compared to a bigger one with the same T/W. This being said, the F-35 is heavier than the hornet, which I think has enough payload for pretty much anything when you have more than 1 plane doing a mission, so putting bigger wings on it wouldn't have helped it that much aside from raising the operational cost for loaded performances. Now for increasing internal volume, well, that's what made the plane chubby in the first place, so you either scale it up and make it slicker, keeping around the same internal volume, or you don't solve the problem. Finally, If you say bigger wings would have helped the lightning with low speed handling, It is true, but maybe not in a significant way. I you doubt this, compare the wing loading of an F-18 and F-15. The -18 has the bigger wing loading, but also has the better low speed handling so you can't be sure of that without deeper analysis.

Well...this got patriotic real quick...I don't see how comparing technology with LoL-like memory (Little old Lady, aka wires passing through magnets) that was straight up physical has anything to do with what could be compared as a modern program. IMHO, it doesn't matter whether Russians are said [edited for sensible beings] behind because of research, development or economical problems, the fact still is that Russians do not have access to these technologies on the field. Having 20 front door key at home is nice, but useless when you forgot them inside.

Look, you can look at a Su-35 that ran out of guns if you want to look at the worst, what he's saying is that it shouldn't happen under any circumstances and with any 10% decent pilot.

The further the better, assuming you can get enough FPS

Try changing your viewing distance in the options.

I do get a lot of kills on them with aim-9s. While I agree its not perfect, I don't think ED's planes are much better, surviving an AIM-9 without an hydro fail should be possible. But for 120s, mirages shouldn't be able to survive a direct impact as often, given the missile was designed to take down a bomber. As I said, I think it's just a problem with the nose or something, ALL the rest of the plane is perfectly fine.

Well. IRL planes dont exploade magically at the moment they get hit by anything... FCS/Hydro fails, wait 5s for the accumulators to empty, than wait 1-3s to realise he's moving straight only. So yeah, wait... Besides, the mirage's nose is OP, in the sense than it will take all the damage, blocking it for the rest of the plane. This is something that is present in all plane to some extent, just more on the M2K. That's the only problem with it.

You know how probability works... If you've got a chance on 4000 to get a car accident, it doesn't mean you cant go through a whole year getting a car accident each day... Just means that odd is 1.77*10^-1315 Now on the track... Mirage 1 : 1 AIM-7 fired in bad conditions, missed, 2cd one hit M2K dead instantly Mirage 2 : AIm-9 hit, missing radar. Aim-9#2 shot 2s after the first one, hit again Mirage lost control. You didn't let time for any failures to develop after 1st missile. Mirage #3 Aim-120 hit Mirage lost radar, Fuel leak. Was able to land though. Life #2 Mirage #4 120 Hit&Kill

I don't have much experience with that type of sensor, but you might want to try it with smaller magnets, HDD ones are a big start, and they also are large, so I'm not sure how you'd put them in an hdd anyways. Also, not sure why you didn't just buy another stick, here that sensor is half of the price of a new 3d pro, which are known to develop mechanical dead zones in under 6 months.

While being much harder to kill than most other planes, the Mirage is now at a realistic level. I.e. the plane will survive missile hits unlike FC3, but the pilot will lose control in the 10s to come after impact 90%+ of the time.

Hmm, where does that available g formula come from? Don't wanna discredit what you said or anything, just am curious, as the units do not match (none vs 9.8m/s²)

Wow...That must be awkward in the debreif. room

This is the case for any swept wing, not only delta wings. As you said, its all about the flow that is orthogonal to the wing, which any wing that has a sweep angle will reduce.

You get ~5s of oxygen reserve in your brain before starting to get tunelling vision or any other G effects. So if you did a small G-spike, you wont get affected by it.

Hmm, not sure what you mean. What I meant was that from what I know supercruise happens at medium altitudes, and plane manufactures are usually not too quiet about supercruising, especially Dassault! (You know, the guys that said the rafale was as stealth as the F-35 ;) )

Supercrusing ASL is...unlikely indeed.

I guess a little someone can't take a little joke. No harm intended, although this should be a first reflex when you are talking about a bug.

Thing is, what you do is go at medium alt. while the Su is staying low, and than you catch him pretty quick. But anyways, give us a track or don't talk back! (had to make up something clever-ish)

lol F-15 can catch a 27 in dcs...Did it so often... Now two things : 1-Max speed is function of altitude, in a non-linear manner. This means that a plane that can get as fast as Mac 2.5 at angel 50 could possibly get overtaken by a plane limited at Mac 2. This depends mainly on the low altitude Cl/Cd and the Trust vs altitude curve of the engines. 2-There are multiples way to catch a bandit running away. If the pursuer gains altitude, it will increase his max speed. Also, if your enemy wasn't exactly on your 6 o'clock, he will have an easier time catching you if he takes the optimal heading. Finally, if you did small turns to defend his 530s, that will have a big impact.

That's a split-S

Did someone call me? Haha great one!

Nice resurrection of a thread exactly 9 months after its death XD

Good to hear the bug's getting some love! Also, -33 has been announced since a long time, too late for a poll. Besides, be happy Daniel, the -29's G limit is even worst than the flanker's I hear...