Basher54321

I have never used Steam and the only games I have are flight related - you think the required target demographic are general gamers and less so Aviation enthusiasts?

One of the better internet stats sites shows Windows currently having 87% Desktop and Laptop market share with Linux at 2% - might give an idea of what is actually being looked at. :thumbup: https://netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share

Does this not apply anymore? 1.16 Posting images, file links, file sharing links, copying and pasting information, or referencing of military aircraft and related equipment documents, in any way, newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed, a 20% warning and 1-week suspension will be issued.

This takes a bit of getting used to - I have resigned myself to saying goodbye to one or both missiles in close. Also not sure I have managed to fly a mission yet without at least one drop tank coming off and landing on a bunch of houses - good job Gulags are not implemented.

Not really that simple - what was representative originally doesn't necessary remain representative if looking at data 17 or so years later - even if you ignore the fact that weights can vary by airframe! Also there is more than just weight to consider here if requiring a detailed engine model.

One stand out would be the different engine on the 40 with lower rating.

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/92007-the-drop-tank-dilemma/

I really don't know - most likely they thought the next step would be replace with something else - unlikely to be political because APG-68 was exported to various non primary countries by then. Taiwan (ROC) had the very similar APG-66 v 3 around the same time but they are currently replacing them with APG-83 which will also be replacing APG-68s from now.

The APG-66V 2 was quite a significant upgrade that apparently demonstrated performance near to the APG-68 of that time - was also a bit lighter.

This happened in every single Epsom campaign mission. Even waiting until I might need to switch it on the sight seemed to fail before I could use it. Log sometimes reported an "AW Shoot" fail event Happened over the last stable version and updating to the current stable release (no mods installed). Random systems failures is off. Pulled Epsom 5 and ran as a single mission - HUD failed after take off. Ran same procedure in Instant action Normandy cold start - HUD stayed on. Ran Epsom 5 mission again with same procedure - HUD stayed until over Lisieux this time - with AW shoot fail but no other damage apparent.

No - the majority of USAF F-16s (Block 10 / 15 / 25/ 30) in 1991 had no capability to use any targeting pods at that time. Block 40/42 was the first to be integrated with anything like that. Some Block 30s were upgraded years later for TGPs.

An Internal Jammer was part of the main US F-16 dev program from the late 1970s and F-16s had provisions and bits added specifically for it in the early to mid 1980s. The USAF pulled out in 89 as is known but the system did eventually go into some export F-16s in the late 1990s.

They only had the AAQ-13 which is the NAV/FLIR pod not the TGP pod (AAQ-14). Actually if you go to the last but one photo page you can see one of the guys taking off on a combat mission with the AAQ-13 on the left cheek and nothing on the right cheek.

In 1991 most of the USAF F-16s in combat had no such capability - the only system available was LANTIRN (AAQ-14) that could only be carried by the few USAF Block 40 squadrons. Unfortunately they were never allocated any during that period - they all went to F-15E squads instead.

-1 is a reference to the manual not the aircraft - you can see the designations: F-5E Starts at AF71-1417 F-5E-1 Starts at AF76-1526 F-5E-3 Starts at AF79-1681 Actually TLTeo suggest you delete that link very quickly.

Oh the post you replied to was related to the designations v6/v7/v8 - didn't twig you were still going on about the USAF Radar. Well aware of that info - that Wiki post refers to a dead Janes article (Jan 2008 ) The V9 sales brochure might be about still.

The (V)9 is probably a given on most (if not all) Plus/Advanced I think. One reference I have - shows several exposed close ups of the non Plus HAF Block 50 radar (probably Peace Xenia II) and refer to it multiple times as the APG-68 (V) 7 No mention of any 8 though. Viper Under the Skin (Lekkas & Gkonis 2015) http://eagleaviation.gr/work/f-16-fighting-falcon-viper-under-the-skin/

This guy doesn't agree- I'm saying we've flown with 3 mavs in combat as recently as Iraqi Freedom, we've fired all three mavs and not experienced any damage. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118428&page=2 The USAF apparently dropped LAU-88s for F-16s in the early 2000s - been asked a few times.

Not aware of any and more importantly none are listed for this model.

Have only seen mentioned by Chuck Yeager (was not a fan) and Melampy mentions it - however actual research on the LWF design concept suggests the USAF centrifuge experiments showed it increased G tolerance ~1.5G and tracking levels 33 to 55% - so looks like it was a consideration before hand and valid for a tech demonstrator.

What about them? Outside of this what is there? v7 - export for Korea & Singapore (& Greece) v8 - export for Egypt and Greece?

They might actually be right - is there anything credible (public) that states the USAF installed the v9/v10 before 2010 or even at all? A budget request for v9 was put in for FY2007 (to procure) and ongoing years but the fact that this disappeared in the next budget request (and ongoing) would suggest it was cancelled.

Although you generally put some good arguments forward - this is on the face of it not one of them. Kill ratios in combat are also product of circumstance - (e.g you still have to be in the right place at the right time) and whole ton of factors that don't lend well if you are simply trying to compare them 1 for 1. For example replace an FA-18C with an F-14 in Desert Storm with problematic EW gear and the MiG-25 still gets a kill regardless. And the F-14 got 4 x 3rd Gen jets (2 fighters) and a chopper! - so not seeing what you are getting at here.

No mods default - I have skipped the mission anyway. Actually happened before on an earlier version last year but they cleared it on maybe a 3rd attempt - have since totally rebuilt the PC. The altitude of the Helicopters is not constant - so I had put it down to the introduction of collidable trees.

Recently ran this mission twice in 2.5.4.29167 and both times one of the UH-60s crashed into trees on their way back to base at the end leading to an Unqualified rating.